[CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update

Grace Abuhamad grace.abuhamad at icann.org
Mon Feb 8 14:40:26 UTC 2016


This discussion has passed the comment deadline on the CCWG side, but I will
pass it on regardless, for their consideration.

From:  <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Gomes, Chuck"
<cgomes at verisign.com>
Date:  Monday, February 8, 2016 at 9:35 AM
To:  Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Seun Ojedeji
<seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
Cc:  "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update

Here are some additional edits for consideration to the language you
suggested Greg:
 
“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 PDPapproved policy recommendations from the PDP or, in the
case of the result(s) of a PDPcross community working group (CCWG) chartered
by more than one supporting organization, without the support of such the
supporting organizations that approved the policy recommendations from that
CCWG.”
 
I don’t this this changes the intent but I believe it is more accurately
worded.  For one thing, SOs don’t develop PDPs, they develop policy
recommendations using PDPs.  And as already noted, there is no such thing as
a cross community PDP.   I think the edited wording above more accurately
reflect what is intended, but I welcome additional edits.
 
Chuck
 
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2016 3:55 PM
To: Seun Ojedeji
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update
 

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/20160208/e4c45c97/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160208/e4c45c97/smime-0001.p7s>


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list