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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Dear Co-Chairs,

Will be good to hear response to my questions (bearing in mind the update
provided by Grace).

Regards
PS: Anyone who has a clear understanding may help as well.

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 11 Apr 2016 19:55, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20160412/cc0849fb/attachment.html>