[CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update

Sun Feb 7 14:57:09 UTC 2016

Should we say ‘cross community WG’ instead of ‘joint PDP’?

Chuck

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 1:39 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update

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<mailto: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<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:47 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:acct-staff-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:45 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org<mailto: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.

Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for CCWG

_______________________________________________
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/20160207/70aca430/attachment-0001.html>