<p dir="ltr">On 3 Feb 2016 5:16 a.m., "Alan Greenberg" <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> At 02/02/2016 02:30 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
>> 2. I believe any change in the CSC charter should involved other chartering SO/AC not just be based on the ccNSO and GNSO decision.<br>
><br>
><br>
> This is moot if the Charter is a Bylaw. But if it is not, there should be involvement of others as there was in the creation of the original.<br>
><br>
SO: Yes just making sure, incase there is an intention to make this an exception.(ref: 3/4 page 14/15)</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
><br>
>> 3. The CCWG proposed process to approve update of any text in the bylaw (including CSC charter) should be applied. So I think the charter update(depending on whether this will be standard or fundamental bylaw) should be subject to board approval.<br>
><br>
><br>
> If it is in a Bylaw, there is no choice but to follow the standard Bylaw change process.<br>
><br>
SO: Same as above, but please have a look at Donna's response as it seem to confirm my concern in 2 above.</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
><br>
>> 4. Some of the decision making does not recognise other community like ALAC as part of the decision makers. For instance the decision process for SCWG.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Seun, could you be specific in the reference? The references to the SCWG in particular seem to acknowledge involvement of a Community Mechanism (it ALSO needs ccNSO/GNSO approval)<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: Yeah that's right, I was referring to the separate approval of ccNSO/GNSO (ref: page 52,55). Somehow I missed that "community" part in the 2 instances. That said, I wonder why the need for a separate approval from the DUO since they are part of the community. I think in order to maximise time/minimise processes one may just require community approval but with a requirement that such approval must include that of the ccNSO/GNSO.(similar to the condition the CCWG on accountability used to secure community power on a bylaw change that emanates via PDP)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
><br>
>> 5. Could it be indicated which of the texts goes to fundamental bylaw and which one to standard?<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>> On 2 Feb 2016 6:21 p.m., "Jonathan Robinson" <<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a> > wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> All,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> A couple of updates since our previous meeting and ahead of our meeting on Thursday Feb 4 @ 16h00 UTC.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> We are waiting for the final wording from CWG Accountability in relation to our requirements on IANA Budget and IRP but now expect that these will be satisfactorily dealt with.<br>
>><br>
>> As per Grace’s note on the CCWG agenda for their meeting today, these matters were subject to “final reading†by the CCWG today.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> On the series of questions presented by Sidley in preparation for drafting the proposed ICANN Bylaws to deal with the work of the CWG Stewardship, Grace’s email of Jan 25 sought further input from our group.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Essentially we have:<br>
>><br>
>> a. Input from relevant DT leads (Thank-you!)<br>
>><br>
>> b. Input from staff<br>
>><br>
>> c. Remaining open questions<br>
>><br>
>> Any input to point c above will be helpful.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> The plan (as per our last meeting and captured in Grace’s email of Jan 25) was to review and provide input so that responses can be provided to Sidley after the Feb 4 Call.<br>
>><br>
>> This work to be done via the mailing list by using the ‘track changes’ feature in Word. Staff will monitor the list and manage version control if needed. <br>
>><br>
>> If there are outstanding issues, or disagreement on a response, this can be discussed further at the next meeting. <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> If you are able to review the document (re-attached for convenience) and provide any input over the next 24 hours or so, that will be very helpful.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Thank-you,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Jonathan & Lise<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org"> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship"> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org"> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship"> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></p>