Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

To date the terms have been used interchangeably.

JAS = Joint Applicant Support (group)
JIG = Joint IDN Group

But sometimes we refer to them as Cross Community Working Groups, sometimes we 
just say Community Working Groups, etc.

By the Way, there is nothing in the bylaws that discusses these types of groups.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 07:06 AM
To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups


Hi

On May 23, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> I would add a question on the actual definition of a CWG in the bylaws. 
> Currently, neither GNSO nor ICANN bylaws adequately define CWGs and this 
> means that these groups are automatically in some sort of grey area. Hence 
> some of the problems we've seen with them.

On a related note, there was much talk on the call last night equating CWGs 
with "joint" WGs.  I asked in the Adobe chat but as this elicited no response 
I'll try again: Are these necessarily the same beast? I don't have time to dig 
through docs right now, but is there a definition of "joint" WGs somewhere that 
would somehow make them exactly equivalent to the apparently undefined CWGs?  

A priori, the notion of joint to me implies complete synchronization between 
the chartering orgs, whereas cross-community connotes a overlapping sphere of 
interest/dialogue/action regarding some subject matter, but this doesn't 
necessarily exclude the possibilities that there may be matters that fall 
outside that sphere & are pursued separately under their respective charters…

Any ontological guidance would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Bill