[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the ALAC on the charter adoption

Fri Sep 12 17:08:43 UTC 2014

Correct, Jonathan was appointed as the GNSO Council liaison to the CWG.
Note that the resolution also stated that 'Until the CWG selects its
co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council recommends that the
co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the interim co-chairs of the
CWG'. As such, staff is working with Byron and Jonathan to plan for the
first meeting once all chartering organisations have appointed their
members.

Best regards,

Marika

On 12/09/14 19:03, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>Is it correct to assume that Jonathan will be there representing the
>Council, not the RySG?
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 12:45 PM
>To: cwg-dt-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the ALAC on the charter
>adoption
>
>Hi,
>
>I basically see it that way as well, and with at least 3 of the SOAC
>having approved the base charter, I think we should be off and running.
> The ICG RFP is already out and the clock is ticking.
>
>As of now, I think we are mostly observers waiting for the membership to
>be picked by our respective SOAC by their chosen procedures.
>
>Actually the GNSO in its motion did appoint one member of the GNSO member
>group, Jonathan.  So the group has at least one member, I think.
>Not sure were others are in their picking.
>
>avri
>
>
>On 12-Sep-14 11:52, Marika Konings wrote:
>> Avri,
>> 
>> If I understand it correctly, the ALAC has adopted the same charter as
>> the ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC have, and in addition have put forward two
>> proposed amendments that have already received the support of the ALAC
>> with a request for the other groups to consider adopting these as
>> well. As such, it is my understanding that the CWG can start its
>> operations under the charter as adopted by all groups and can consider
>> as one of its first items whether or not it is necessary to go back to
>> the ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC to request consideration of the amendments as
>>proposed by the ALAC.
>> Do others see it differently?
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Marika
>> 
>> On 12/09/14 17:26, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Certainly viability and effectiveness, for some definkition of such
>>> terms, of any new proposed solution is in scope, I would think.
>>>
>>> Well it is an NTIA requirement that this be a no charge service.    At
>>> the very least this will need to be stated as a continuing
>>> requirement, assuming it is.
>>>
>>> And part of the reason for NTIA actions is globalization.  Whether we
>>> decide to recommend any globalization solutions or not and what they
>>> entail, this too is something that we may want to discuss.
>>>
>>> I am not sure that we needed the amendment, but on seeing that these
>>> issues could be called out of scope by some, I guess it is worth the
>>> discussing.
>>>
>>> Since ALAC approved with an amendment the rest of us don't have,
>>> something has to change somewhere to bring the charters into 100%
>>> alignment.  either they have to drop it, or the rest have to accept
>>> it, if I understand the situation correctly.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> On 12-Sep-14 08:28, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>>> I am having trouble seeing what they have to do with NTIA's role
>>>> going away so I am just trying to understand that.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>>>> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri
>>>> Doria
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:48 PM
>>>> To: cwg-dt-stewardship at icann.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the ALAC on the
>>>> charter adoption
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> why isn't it in scope.
>>>>
>>>>> Issues related to ensuring IANA's viabbility (sic) and
>>>>> effectiveness, are also within the scope of the CWG. Such issues
>>>>> could include, but are not limited to: Charging structure or the
>>>>> lack thereof and languages that IANA can function in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would think that stability of the transition requires that such
>>>> issues be in scope. In fact why wouldn't any issue having to do with
>>>> IANA futures be in scope?
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure we need the amendment, but I certainly don't see it as
>>>> out of scope.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11-Sep-14 17:13, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>>>> Tijani,
>>>>>
>>>>> What does this addition have to do with the transition process?  It
>>>>> doesn't seem clear to me.  I think a change like this would have to
>>>>> go back for ccNSO and GNSO and SSAC approval.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>
>>>>> From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>>>>> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani
>>>>> BEN JEMAA Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:09 PM To:
>>>>> cwg-dt-stewardship at icann.org Cc: 'Olivier Crépin-Leblond'; 'ICANN
>>>>> At-Large Staff' Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the
>>>>> ALAC on the charter adoption
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is to inform you that the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)
>>>>> adopted the proposed charter with the friendly amendment attached.
>>>>> ALAC also supports the SSAC proposed Amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, should it be too late to make changes, the ALAC accepts
>>>>> the version as proposed by the Drafting Team and endorse it as is.
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Tijani BEN JEMAA
>>>>> Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet
>>>>> Associations
>>>>> (FMAI) Phone:  + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax:
>>>>> + 216 70 853 376
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.av
>>>>> ast
>>>>> .com/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel
>>>>> malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus
>>>>> avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: default[1].xml
Type: application/xml
Size: 3222 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dt-stewardship/attachments/20140912/3601713e/default1-0001.xml>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dt-stewardship/attachments/20140912/3601713e/smime-0001.p7s>