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

Wed Apr 13 16:28:25 UTC 2016

Thanks for the clarification provided offlist Chuck. So (NCPH or RrSG)
implies  (NCPH + RrSG) = 1 liaison.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 13 Apr 2016 2:43 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> Seun,
>
>
>
> As I understand it, the authority source for the extra GNSO liaison is the
> GNSO with the condition that the liaison cannot come from a gTLD registry
> operator because the RySG already has members in the group.  I am not
> understanding your difficulty with this so I must be missing something.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:37 AM
> *To:* Jonathan Robinson
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA
> Bylaws Review Meeting | 11 April 2016
>
>
>
> Thanks for your response, kindly find just a minor clarification on a
> point below, perhaps it helps clarify my question:
>
> On 13 Apr 2016 6:36 a.m., "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
>
> SO: This is well understood, even though I had issues with it I swallowed
> it up a long time again ;-)
>
> >
> Liaison therefore to come from GNSO but not from Registries (i.e. NCPH or
> RrSG)
> >>
>
> SO: This is where I have minor issue on the use of the word "or". Quoting
> from the bylaw draft section 17.2c
>
> "Each of the following organizations may also appoint one liaison to the
> CSC
> in accordance with the rules and procedures of the appointing
> organization:.......either the NRO or ASO (as determined by the ASO),..."
>
> The statement above makes it clear that 1 representative is expected and
> can be selected from either NRO or ASO (bear in mind that NRO != ASO) and
> it further states who has the appointment authority.
>
> The same "or" was used in the case of RySg and NCPH but I don't think the
> intent is to achieve the same purpose of the ASO in that I think 1 from
> either sides is allowed hence the "or" should rather be "and".
>
> That said, if "or" is indeed the intent  then the authority source for the
> 1 nominee  needs to be specified.
>
> Regards
>
> >> 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
> >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160413/9eb20bdc/attachment-0001.html>