[CWG-Stewardship] Update & Planning for Feb 4th Meeting of CWG

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Feb 2 21:24:28 UTC 2016


At 02/02/2016 02:30 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

>Hello,
>
>Thanks for the share, did a quick read and have 
>a few general comments/question:
>
>1. Isn't there a way to have the CSC charter 
>separate and not incorporated into the bylaw as 
>the bylaw is looking quite bulky. That said, I 
>note that it's referred to as Annex D so I 
>assume that is perhaps the only reference that would exist in the bylaw?

Agree.


>2. I believe any change in the CSC charter 
>should involved other chartering SO/AC not just 
>be based on the ccNSO and GNSO decision.

This is moot if the Charter is a Bylaw. But if it 
is not, there should be involvement of others as 
there was in the creation of the original.


>3. The CCWG proposed process to approve update 
>of any text in the bylaw (including CSC charter) 
>should be applied. So I think the charter 
>update(depending on whether this will be 
>standard or fundamental bylaw) should be subject to board approval.

If it is in a Bylaw, there is no choice but to 
follow the standard Bylaw change process.


>4. Some of the decision making does not 
>recognise other community like ALAC as part of 
>the decision makers. For instance the decision process for SCWG.

Seun, could you be specific in the reference? The 
references to the SCWG in particular seem to 
acknowledge involvement of a Community Mechanism 
(it ALSO needs ccNSO/GNSO approval)


>5. Could it be indicated which of the texts goes 
>to fundamental bylaw and which one to standard?
>
>Regards
>On 2 Feb 2016 6:21 p.m., "Jonathan Robinson" 
><<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>jrobinson at afilias.info> wrote:
>
>All,
>
>
>
>A couple of updates since our previous meeting 
>and ahead of our meeting on Thursday Feb 4 @ 16h00 UTC.
>
>
>
>We are waiting for the final wording from CWG 
>Accountability in relation to our requirements 
>on IANA Budget and IRP but now expect that these 
>will be satisfactorily dealt with.
>
>As per Grace’s note on the CCWG agenda for 
>their meeting today, these matters were subject 
>to “final reading” by the CCWG today.
>
>
>
>On the series of questions presented by Sidley 
>in preparation for drafting the proposed ICANN 
>Bylaws to deal with the work of the CWG 
>Stewardship, Grace’s email of Jan 25 sought further input from our group.
>
>
>
>Essentially we have:
>
>a.      Input from relevant DT leads (Thank-you!)
>
>b.      Input from staff
>
>c.      Remaining open questions
>
>Any input to point c above will be helpful.
>
>
>
>The plan (as per our last meeting and captured 
>in Grace’s email of Jan 25) was to review and 
>provide input so that responses can be provided to Sidley after the Feb 4 Call.
>
>This work to be done via the mailing list by 
>using the ‘track changes’ feature in Word. 
>Staff will monitor the list and manage version control if needed.
>
>If there are outstanding issues, or disagreement 
>on a response, this can be discussed further at the next meeting.
>
>
>
>If you are able to review the document 
>(re-attached for convenience) and provide any 
>input over the next 24 hours or so, that will be very helpful.
>
>
>
>Thank-you,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Jonathan & Lise
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20160202/5bbb136d/attachment.html>


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list