[CWG-DT-Stewardship] V6 of the ICG charter

[Julie Hammer]

Thanks, Avri.

Cheers,  Julie

On 11 Aug 2014, at 7:53 am, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

I am fine with all of your proposed changes.

thanks
avri


On 10-Aug-14 17:38, Julie Hammer wrote:
> Good morning again Everyone,
> 
> Apologies for bombarding you with even more but I figure it's best to
> let you have a think about any proposed amendments in advance of our
> meeting tonight.
> 
> In discussions on this topic with our SSAC Chair (Patrik Fältström), he
> made the comment that he is not exactly sure which entities might have
> 'working groups' as such in the parameter and numbering communities.
> While this is probably a very minor point for our draft Charter, it is
> relevant to the following dot point under the heading 'Goals and
> Objectives':
> 
> ·       Meet with the IETF and NSO working groups developing parallel
> transition proposals to explain the CWGs work and remain up to date on
> their progress;
> 
> Perhaps this might be reworded:
> 
> ·       Meet with other working groups developing parallel transition
> proposals, especially for parameters and numbering resources, to explain
> the CWGs work and remain up to date on their progress;
> 
> This is less restrictive wording and hopefully allows for all situations.
> 
> Talk tonight.
> 
> Cheers,  Julie
> 
> On 9 Aug 2014, at 10:57 am, Julie Hammer <julie.hammer at bigpond.com
> <mailto:julie.hammer at bigpond.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Avri and Everyone,
> 
> Many thanks for bringing this draft to our attention.  I had a quick
> look at it and agree that it highlighted a couple of things that we
> might tweak in our CWG draft Charter.
> 
> In particular, I thought that the following points in the ICG draft
> Charter were worth incorporating more clearly in ours:
> 
> *ICG Draft Charter Page 3 Section (i) Liaison and*
> "...to coordinate which community will develop a transition proposal for
> each area of overlap (eg., special-use registry)."
> *ICG Draft Charter Page 4 Section (ii) Assessment*
> "The ICG might at some point detect problems with the component
> proposals. At that point, the role of the ICG is to communicate that
> back to the relevant communities so that they (the relevant communities)
> can address the issues."
> I have tried to address both these issues by adding words under the
> section *Section III:  Deliverables, Timeframes, and Reporting* in No 9
> on the list of work plan deliverables, which now reads: 
> "9.     A process and timeline for communicating with the ICG, including
> a process for:
> a)   Agreeing any additions requested by the ICG to the scope of the
> Transition Proposal.  For example, the ICG may request the CWG or one of
> its chartering organizations to develop a transition proposal for a
> particular area of overlap (eg., special-use registry; and
> b)   Resolving any problems detected by the ICG between other component
> proposals and this CWG Transition Proposal;"
> 
> *ICG Draft Charter Page 4 Section (ii) Assessment*
> "Each proposal should be submitted with a clear record of how consensus
> has been reached for the proposal in the community"
> I have added this as sub-para c) under the heading _'Final Transition
> Proposal'._
> and
> "and provide an analysis that shows the proposal is in practice workable." 
> I have added the sentence "This proposal must provide an analysis that
> shows that it is in practice workable." at the end of the first para
> under the heading "Deliverables"
> 
> These changes have been incorporated in the attached updated version of
> our draft Charter.
> 
> Cheers,  Julie
> 
> <DT Charter Template - redline - 8 August 2014 jmh2.doc>
> 
> On 9 Aug 2014, at 8:21 am, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-08-en
> <
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-charter-coordination-group-17jun14-en.pdf>
> 
> Do we need any tweaks to accommodate their charter.  I think we might
> need a few, but I don't think they are fundamental, though perhaps
> procedural.
> 
> On a first read, I think their charter is rather ok.  Though, I may find
> things to bicker about on further delving.
> 
> avri
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
> 
_______________________________________________
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship