[CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Jun 11 11:33:43 UTC 2015


I would hope that goes without saying!

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Accepting that Greg, I wonder if we should have language saying that
> neither SO should not unreasonably block an action that only impacts the
> other SO?  Or maybe this isn’t needed.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:30 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* jrobinson at afilias.info; Alan Greenberg; CWG
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review
> until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
>
>
>
> Chuck,
>
>
>
> If I understand your point correctly, I don't think that's correct.  Both
> of the SOs must approve.  Each does not mean either, it means both.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Another reason for using ‘each’ is that in some cases a problem may be
> essentially just a cc problem or just a g problem and in those cases it may
> not be appropriate for one of the SOs to be able to block an action.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:26 AM
> *To:* 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Greg Shatan'
>
>
> *Cc:* 'CWG'
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review
> until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
>
>
>
> Alan,
>
>
>
> Thank-you for your acceptance of the current wording.
>
>
>
> Please note that from my recall, Sidley proposed the introduction of
> “each” as legally less ambiguous. I believe the chat record from Tuesday’s
> meeting will confirm this but haven’t yet checked.
>
>
>
> If this is so, I suggest we stick with it (each).
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>]
> *Sent:* 11 June 2015 04:46
> *To:* Greg Shatan
> *Cc:* CWG
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review
> until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
>
>
>
> Understood. But to ensure proper intent and translation, I think less
> potentially ambiguous.
>
> Alan
>
> At 10/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
> Each means both in this sentence. (A bill requires approval of each house
> of Congress before it is sent to the President.)
> Either would mean one or the other.
>
> That said both also works.
>
> On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca >
> wrote:
>
> A few minutes late, but...
>
> In paragraph 125, page 24 of V4, I can live with the current wording about
> the optional Public Comment but meaningful AC/SO consultation.
>
> However, the wording change I requested to clarify that the BOTH the ccNSO
> and GNSO approval is needed was not made.
>
> ...triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO
> Councils ...
>
> should read
>
> ...triggered by a supermajority vote of BOTH of the ccNSO and GNSO
> Councils...
>
> (Caps added to highlight the change in this message. The "of" following
> "both" is probably not needed.)
>
> Alan
>
> At 09/06/2015 10:59 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
>
> Forwarding again to Client Committee.
>
> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org
> <grace.abuhamad at icann.org%20>>
>
> Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:46 PM
>
> To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org <brenda.brewer at icann.org%20>>,
> " cwg-stewardship at icann.org" < cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until
> 23:59UTC on 10 June
>
> Dear all,
>
> During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and final reading of the
> Proposal. Changes were made live, and outstanding changes were noted as
> action items (see notes below). The staff team has reviewed the proposal
> and completed all actions listed. Please note that Sidley will provide a
> final review as well which includes some work on the implementation text in
> Section IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S.
>
> With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into a final review period that
> lasts until 23:59 UTC tomorrow (10 June). As noted on the call, the
> intention of the review period is to do a ‘proofread’ and notify the
> group of any errors. During this period of 26 hours, any statements or
> comments on the Proposal may also be sent to the group. As the Chairs noted
> on the call, if you are making a statement, please be sure to identify
> whether you do so as a member on behalf of a Chartering Organization, as an
> individual representing a specific organization, or as an individual with a
> personal remark/contribution.
>
> After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will work with staff to rectify any
> errors, update section VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver the Proposal
> to the Chartering Organizations on 11 June. Our call on 11 June will focus
> on how the CWG-Stewardship does its engagement, through its members and
> participants, to coalesce support for the Proposal among Chartering
> Organizations. In addition, there are two webinars on 11 June (one at 06:00
> UTC and one at 13:00 UTC):
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. These webinars aim
> to provide a briefing to the broader community about the contents of the
> final proposal. Finally, as we head into ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, please
> refer to the schedule of sessions that relate to the CWG-Stewardship work:
> https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw.
>
> Thank you all for your great work and dedication to the process. Please
> contact us if you have any questions regarding the process or
> administration over the next 48h.
>
> Best,
>
> Gramika (Grace+Marika)
>
> From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org <brenda.brewer at icann.org%20>>
>
> Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM
>
> To: " cwg-stewardship at icann.org" < cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #58 9
> June 2015
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9
> June 2015 are available here:
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Brenda
>
>
> Action Items
>
>
>
>
>  Paragraph 108:  Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is
> customary"
>
> Paragraph 134:  Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest
> of the Proposal, among other things
>
> Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee"
>
> Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation.
>
> Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble
>
> Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter
>
> Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the
> Proposal, among other things
> Notes
>
>
>
>
>  1. Opening Remarks
>
> ·        A big thanks to all who contributed to edits.
>
> ·        Following closure of this meeting, staff will send final
> document  to the CWG.
>
> ·        CWG will then have 24h to notify the group of any errors.
> Intention is not to reopen issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT
> 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE
>
> ·        Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note.
>
> 2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses
>
> Can expect a final version to be circulated in the next 24h. Staff is
> working on consistency-checking across the responses. The document is
> frozen as of 1 June.
>
> 3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal
>
> The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw.
> <https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw>
>
> Staff have included the responses in Section IV (and included an Annex to
> for the Finance information).
>
> 4. Last Review of Final Proposal
>
> On screen now is version 5. The difference between the previous version
> and the latest is that the Chairs took some time to review which items were
> still open and which had been resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key
> outstanding issues. This latest version also includes the DT-A annex which
> has now been included.
>
> Paragraph 108: Change the wording from "ringfence" to "isolate" and remove
> the definition in the footnote.  ICANN has control and ownership of PTI and
> the implementation documents will assure against further transfer out of
> assets.
>
> Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary"
>
> Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory.
>
> Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also
> including the CSC as part of the remit.
>
> Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121
>
> Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are included in annex and
> summary is included in the section now.
>
> Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the
> Proposal, among other things
>
> Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee"
>
> Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation.
>
> Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table
>
> Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble
>
> Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter
>
> Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg
>
> 5. Overall Timeline / Milestones
>
>     a. Communications
>
>     b. Webinars on 11 June
>
>     c. Sessions at ICANN 53
>
> 6. AOB
>
>     a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement
>
>     b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call
>
>     c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June
>
> 7. Closing Remarks
>
> After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with comments or statements DUE AT
> 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
> Cwg-client mailing list
>
> Cwg-client at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150611/407ab1e1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list