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

[Jonathan Robinson]

Seun,

 

I’ll do what I can to answer the questions. As you say, others may have a view.

 

Please seen inline below.

 

Trust that’s helpful.

 

Jonathan

 

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] 
Sent: 12 April 2016 06:47
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting | 11 April 2016

 

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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?

As per the proposal, Registries substantially determine the composition of the CSC. IMO, the purpose of Liaison is to provide others in the GNSO with opportunity to monitor and interact with CSC. Liaison therefore to come from GNSO but not from Registries (i.e. NCPH or RrSG)

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.

Agreed

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.

CWG proposal (para. 391, p. 91) says:

“The SCWG will follow the overall guidelines and procedures for ICANN Cross Community Working Groups.”

I read this to be such guidelines (for CWGs) that are in place or developed from time to time. Therefore I read this to be the (outcome) of the former i.e. the CCWG-Principles has draft guidelines currently out for public comment.

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 <mailto: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/20160413/a456f5a5/attachment.html>