<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
On 11 Apr 2016 6:39 p.m., "Brenda Brewer" <<a href="mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org">brenda.brewer@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> · Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is <br>
> that this not be from a gTLD registry. <br>
><br>
SO: That there is still a "or" between NCSG and RrSG makes me wonder what this mean in practice; that NCSG will not appoint if RrSG appointed a liaison first or the other way round?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Secondly, what's the use of a liaison since the DUO are components of the GNSO. I have not gone to the proposal to check if this is inline but it seem like an overkill to me.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> · Question 10: no change. <br>
><br>
> · Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not for inclusion in Bylaws. <br>
><br>
> · Question 12: no change. <br>
><br>
> · Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'. <br>
><br>
SO: sounds more broadly inclusive and clear than the alternative.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Or an <br>
> alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the <br>
> IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large". <br>
><br>
> Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship <br>
> proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles. <br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: Is this referring to the current CCWG framework open for PC or principles that will be set in the charter of each CCWG? If the former then fine(although I would note that having such mindset early would have been a good thing), however if it's the later I guess the high-level principles of the SCWG is indeed what we are discussing and I don't think it's something to be determined later.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">> · Question 24: no change<br>
><br>
> · Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify. <br>
><br>
> · Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs. <br>
><br>
> Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a. <br>
><br>
> 2. AOB<br>
><br>
> Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday. The implementation update and other items <br>
> may be able to be provided via email. <br>
><br>
> Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps. <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>
</p>