[CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sun Feb 7 20:55:13 UTC 2016 

The carve-out language is limited to discussion of PDPs.  Not every WG is a
PDP WG.  Unless we want to expand this limitation, any revision needs to
carry on this limitation.  The reference to a "joint PDP" is specifically
in the context of the results of a policy development process developed by
two or more supporting organizations.  Here's the paragraph under
discussion:

*Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold
for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the
result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP)
may be launched  without the support of the supporting organization that
developed such PDP or, in the case of joint PDPs, without the support of
the supporting organizations that developed such PDP.*

The language in the latter part is kind of  clumsy.  "Joint PDP" is an
awkward shorthand for a PDP WG chartered by more than one SO -- not one
where there underlying policy development process was jointly developed by
multiple SOs (which doesn't exist). In turn, it refers to a challenge to
the "results" of the PDP, not really to the PDP itself.  For clarity, I
would suggest the following:

*Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold
for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the
result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP)
may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that
developed such PDP or, in the case of the result(s) of a PDP working group
chartered by more than one supporting organization, without the support of
such supporting organizations.*

In any event, this discussion of the "joint PDP" language may be out of
scope for CWG-Stewardship.  As such, this comment should be referred back
to CCWG-Accountability for its review and consideration.

Greg

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160207/9c688577/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list