[CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting | 11 April 2016

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 11 Apr 2016 6:39 p.m., "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer at icann.org> wrote:
>
>
> ·
Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC
liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is
> that this not be from a gTLD registry.
>
SO: That there is still a "or" between NCSG and RrSG makes me wonder what
this mean in practice; that NCSG will not appoint if RrSG appointed a
liaison first or the other way round?

Secondly, what's the use of a liaison since the DUO are components of the
GNSO. I have not gone to the proposal to check if this is inline but it
seem like an overkill to me.

> ·        Question 10: no change.
>
> ·
Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the
Charter. It is not  for inclusion in Bylaws.
>
> ·        Question 12: no change.
>
> ·
Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original
text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'.
>
SO: sounds more broadly inclusive and clear than the alternative.

Or an
>
alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for
CSC).  That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the
>
IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming
functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large".
>
>
Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is
support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship
>
proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by
the CCWG-Principles.
>

SO: Is this referring to the current CCWG framework open for PC or
principles that will be set in the charter of each CCWG? If the former then
fine(although I would note that having such mindset early would have been a
good thing), however if it's the later I guess the high-level principles of
the SCWG is indeed what we are discussing and I don't think it's something
to be determined later.

Regards

> ·        Question 24: no change
>
> ·
Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out
to Avri and Matt to clarify.
>
> ·
Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus
on gTLDs.
>
>
Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in
copy about language in 18.4a.
>
> 2. AOB
>
>
Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a
meeting on Thursday.  The implementation update and other items
> may be able to be provided via email.
>
>
Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will
discuss and revert back to group with next steps.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160411/0611a50a/attachment.html>