RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Comments on the 22 Nov 2011 version

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

Please see my comments and suggestions below in response to Alan's input.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 11:53 PM
> To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Comments on the 22 Nov 2011 version
> 
> 
> 
> >1.i To provide information and recommendations to the chartering
> >organizations.
> 
> I think that this is a bit insular. Surely at least in some cases,
> the purpose will be to provide information and recommendations to the
> wider ICANN community, even if to get their they need to be approved
> by the chartering bodies. DSSA is a good example.

[Gomes, Chuck] I understand Alan's point but also believe that we need to be 
careful to avoid the CWG from becoming an a policy influencing body independent 
of the official policy development organizations.  Here is one way of possibly 
dealing with this (with my changes in CAPS):  Change 1.i to " To provide 
information and recommendations to the chartering organizations IN ACCORDANCE 
WITH THE CHARTER OR DIRECTIONS FROM THE CHARTERING ORGANIZATIONS."  Cases that 
Allen is concerned about could be dealt with up-front, if anticipated, by 
allowing for them in the charter.  In the event of unanticipated cases, which 
will likely occur, the CWG could request permission from the chartering 
organizations.  To cover the latter, the charter could have a procedure for the 
CWG to quickly obtain permission for communications to groups other than the 
chartering organizations.

> 
> 
> >1.ii A discussion forum to achieve greater community understanding
> >either prior to a PDP to help define issues and concerns, or
> >following a PDP to provide implementation recommendations or related
> guidance.
> 
> This sounds like this would be the prime reason for starting a CWG
> and in reality, that may not be the case (again, look at DSSA).
> Perhaps changing "Purpose" to "Possible Purposes could include" would
> fix it.

[Gomes, Chuck] At first glance, this change seems okay to me.

> 
> 
> >1.a.i Apply appropriate SO WG Guidelines to all CWGs whenever
> possible.
> 
> At the very least, SO should be AC/SO as in other cases. But the word
> "applicable" also comes to mind.

[Gomes, Chuck] I am fine with both changes: "Apply applicable AC/SO WG 
Guidelines . . ."

> 
> 
> Alan
>