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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff

Thanks, I thought it might be more a matter of common usage than precisely 
equivalent definitions.  So since the Bylaws provide no guidance or constraint 
and the actual practices have varied, we aren't bound by anything in conjuring 
up a framework and can do some comparative cost/benefit assessment of 
alternatives.  In which case I'd plump for clearly defined rules that are not 
overly restrictive of chartering orgs if they want to have both shared synched 
spheres and, in line with their member interests and chartering, some space to 
pursue other elements.  

Cheers

Bill

On Jun 10, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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