[gnso-ccwg-dt] RE: RESEND re: Revised Draft Principles/Next Call

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Julie.

Forgive my denseness but I am having trouble understanding the following 
rationale for 2.c) iii): "A CWG's charter could override that provision, with 
explicit reference, giving people notice that unless they participated in the 
CWG, they'd risk losing opportunity to object."  What provision could be 
overridden?  Are we considering suggesting that people could lose their 
opportunity to object if they don't participate in the CWG?  I'd like to think 
not, but it sure sounds that way to me.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:11 PM
To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] RESEND re: Revised Draft Principles/Next Call

All,

It seems like the Word document may have been corrupted in transit.  I'm 
resending it.

Thanks,
Julie


On 11/22/11 5:07 PM, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,

Here are some brief notes from today's call concerning the revisions to the 
Draft Principles.  The revised document is attached in Word and PDF and also is 
posted to the wiki at 
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoccwgdraftteam/5.+Background+Documents.  
 The redline/tracked changes indicate those changes that were suggested during 
the call or immediately after.  Please let me know if you have any questions.  
Your additional edits to the document are welcome and encouraged!

Our next call is scheduled for Tuesday, 06 December at UTC/1200 PST/1500 
EST/2000 London/2100 CET.  A reminder will be send prior to the call.

Best regards,

Julie

Attendees:  Jonathan Robinson (Chair), Chuck Gomes Alan Greenberg, Mikey 
O'Conner, Wendy Seltzer, Jaime Wagner; Staff: Julie Hedlund, Liz Gasster, and 
Nathalie Peregrine

General Comments:

  *   Accept changes suggested by John and Chuck unless otherwise noted
  *   Add outline numbering throughout (as reference below)
  *   Note that since rationale will be included in the final document (not 
only for WG use) then the language should be made parallel and details added.
  *   Consider whether to use "should" or "must" (suggestion in chat room by 
Wendy)

1. Scope of CWGs:
a) Change "Limit purpose to" to "Purpose"
i) Delete "and/or to ICANN staff"

2. Operations of CWGs:

a) Formation of CWGs:
ii) Consider adding "whenever possible" and bracket for further discussion. 
Could include a situation where you had a ccNSO/GNSO WG where you had some 
issues of common interest and others that were not, or where a separate set of 
rules might apply.  There could be issues where there might be a separate set 
of rules.  However, others asked why more than one set of rules might apply.  
Marked for discussion on the next call.  Also, add language suggested by Mikey 
that indicates that the charter defines the rules and procedures for the CWG.

b) Execution of CWGs:
i) Why "as appropriate"?  Suggested revision: "CWGs should follow the approved 
charter and bring concerns back to all chartering organizations for resolution 
according to their respective processes."

c) Outcomes of CWGs
i) Suggested revision: "Policy recommendations should be considered for 
possible approval and approved through the appropriate Policy Development 
Process."
ii) Suggested revision: Delete "only" and "further" and change to "must 
communicate".
iii)  Add new iii based on comments in the chat and Wendy's follow up email on 
the list.