[CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Feb 6 18:39:18 UTC 2016


Thanks Chuck, in that case there may be need to remove the section
referring to "joint PDP" in the document.

I still have one more pending question on the "IRP subgroup" as I can't
seem to figure out who those are, neither can I find a definition for such.

Cheers!
On 6 Feb 2016 3:04 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> Seun,
>
>
>
> I don’t think there is such a thing as a joint PDP but there are joint
> WGs.  There is a cross community working group that has been deliberating
> for a couple years to develop recommendations for cross community working
> groups.  I am not in the WG but I believe that they are leaning toward
> recommending the process that has been used in cross community WGs to date,
> i.e., that it is up to each supporting organization to decide whether they
> support any policy recommendations.  Here’s a link to WG site:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/cross-community
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 05, 2016 1:47 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Grace Abuhamad
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update
>
>
>
> +1 to Chuck suggested modification. Minor question/comment:
>
> Section 4 of Annex 7 "...or, in the case of joint PDPs, without the
> support of the supporting organizations that developed such PDP.
>
> Considering that we are speaking in the context of names (and considering
> that the ccNSO has some level of independence policy wise?) Are there
> example of PDPs/policies developed by both the GNSO and ccNSO (since the
> ASO would be out of context here)? and secondly is there a definition of
> joint PDP somewhere?
>
> The "standing" section refers to "IRP Subgroup", may I know who those are
> and where they are defined?
>
> Regards
>
> On 5 Feb 2016 5:42 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> In the 2nd Reading Conclusions, item 1.a.iii.1 says: “ICANN should
> consider modification of Registry Agreements with gTLD Operators to expand
> scope of arbitration available thereunder to cover PTI service complaints.”
> It seems to me that the wording should be stronger: “ICANN must modify
> Registry Agreements with gTLD Operators to expand scope of arbitration
> available thereunder to cover PTI service complaints.”
>
>
>
> I think the same change should be made later in the document when this
> sentence occurs again.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Grace Abuhamad
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:18 PM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update
>
>
>
> Dear CWG-Stewardship,
>
>
>
> Today the CCWG-Accountability published its latest version of its
> recommendations on the IRP. Please see attached for text, and provide any
> comments you may have. As noted in the email below:
>
>    - This version has been generated from the conclusion of the third
>    reading document and includes the modification required by the CWG for PTI
>    and has been reviewed by Becky Burr.
>    - As such you will find attached 3 versions, Word and PDF red lined as
>    well as a clean PDF version given the markups are extensive in some
>    sections.
>    - Once this legal review is completed *(48 hours -  *
>
> *​20:00 ​*
>
> * UTC Saturday)*, results of the review will be published on this list, a
> final version will be generated and posted for final CCWG comments.​
>
> I have highlighted the deadline above since it is important for the CWG to
> follow this timeline as well. Considering the time pressure that the CCWG
> is under, we should do our best to not delay them further. If you are able
> to post on the CCWG list directly, that would be more efficient for them.
> Otherwise, I will work with the co-Chairs to transfer the information in
> time.
>
>
>
> I have also attached two documents that help track the status of the
> CCWG-Accountability work overall.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Grace
>
>
>
> *From: *<acct-staff-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Bernard Turcotte <
> turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:45 PM
> *To: *Accountability Cross Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>, ACCT-Staff <
> acct-staff at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Acct-Staff] CCWG - Recommendation 7 - Final draft version for
> legal review
>
>
>
>>
> All,
>
>
>
> ​Per the request of the co-chairs we are publishing the final draft
> version of  Annex 7  for legal review.
>
>
>
> This version has been generated from the conclusion of the third reading
> document and includes the modification required by the CWG for PTI and has
> been reviewed by Becky Burr.
>
>
>
> As such you will find attached 3 versions, Word and PDF red lined as well
> as a clean PDF version given the markups are extensive in some sections.
>
>
>
> Once this legal review is completed (48 hours -
>
> ​20:00 ​
>
> UTC Saturday), results of the review will be published on this list, a
> final version will be generated and posted for final CCWG comments.​
>
>
>
> ​Thank You.
>
>
>
> B​ernard Turcotte
>
> ICANN Staff Support for CCWG
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160206/4f38b40a/attachment.html>


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list