<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Seun,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As I understand it, the authority source for the extra GNSO liaison is the GNSO with the condition that the liaison cannot come from a gTLD registry operator
because the RySG already has members in the group. I am not understanding your difficulty with this so I must be missing something.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Seun Ojedeji<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:37 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jonathan Robinson<br>
<b>Cc:</b> cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting | 11 April 2016<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Thanks for your response, kindly find just a minor clarification on a point below, perhaps it helps clarify my question:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>On 13 Apr 2016 6:36 a.m., "Jonathan Robinson" <<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> As per the proposal, Registries substantially determine the composition of the CSC. IMO, the purpose of Liaison is to provide others in the GNSO with opportunity to monitor and interact with CSC.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>SO: This is well understood, even though I had issues with it I swallowed it up a long time again ;-)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>><br>
Liaison therefore to come from GNSO but not from Registries (i.e. NCPH or RrSG)<br>
>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>SO: This is where I have minor issue on the use of the word "or". Quoting from the bylaw draft section 17.2c<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>"Each of the following organizations may also appoint one liaison to the CSC <br>
in accordance with the rules and procedures of the appointing organization:.......either the NRO or ASO (as determined by the ASO),..."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The statement above makes it clear that 1 representative is expected and can be selected from either NRO or ASO (bear in mind that NRO != ASO) and it further states who has the appointment authority.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The same "or" was used in the case of RySg and NCPH but I don't think the intent is to achieve the same purpose of the ASO in that I think 1 from either sides is allowed hence the "or" should rather be "and".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>That said, if "or" is indeed the intent then the authority source for the 1 nominee needs to be specified.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> > · 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.<br>
>><br>
>> Agreed<br>
>><br>
>> 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>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> CWG proposal (para. 391, p. 91) says:<br>
>><br>
>> “The SCWG will follow the overall guidelines and procedures for ICANN Cross Community Working Groups.”<br>
>><br>
>> I read this to be such guidelines (for CWGs) that are in place or developed from time to time. Therefore I read this to be the (outcome) of the former i.e. the CCWG-Principles has draft guidelines currently out for public comment.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>><br>
>> > · 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>
>> ><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>