[CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sun Feb 7 15:12:58 UTC 2016


That would have done the trick but if the intent is to only cover SOs then
using cross community WG may broaden the scope beyond supporting
organisations.

Regards

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> 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/20160207/7c25d35c/attachment.html>


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list