<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] RE: For your review: revised draft charter
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] RE: For your review: revised draft charter
- From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 18:04:25 +0000
See my responses. In blue
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx> / www.neustar.biz
From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Saturday, March 1, 2014 at 9:29 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>,
"gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>"
<gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] RE: For your review: revised draft charter
Thanks Becky, John and Mary for the quick turn-around on this. Here is my
feedback.
Is there a reason why we refer to ‘(Co-)Chairs’ throughout the charter. Why
not call them ‘Co-Chairs’? I agree
Is it correct to assume that the Co-Chairs will be appointed from the Members
of the WG, in other words, they would be allowed to vote? It might be good to
clarify this. In my opinion, if the co-chairs represent their SO or AC, then
they should be allowed to vote by simply taking off their co-chair hast when
doing so; otherwise, the SO/AC would lose one of their voices when voting
occurs. On the other hand, if the co-chairs are expected to serve specifically
in a completely neutral capacity, then they would not need to vote; in such a
case though, I don’t think they should be included in the Minimum and Maximum
Member numbers. I think it would be helpful to clarify these issues in the
charter. Yes the co-chairs will be selected from the members and by the
members. I assume that they would be allowed to vote, although the question
itself reflects an interesting difference in approach between the ccnso and the
gnso. Our task is to come up with a set of recommendations regarding process
and appropriate topics for cross constituency work – which necessarily precedes
policy development under both the GNSO and ccNSO rules.
Am I correct in assuming that Observers need to be appointed just like Members?
If so, the following statement is fine: “Each of the participating SOs and ACs
shall appoint Participants to the WG in accordance with their own rules and
procedures.” If not (i.e., if Observers may participate without being appointed
by their SO/AC), then this probably should be changed to “Each of the
participating SOs and ACs shall appoint Members to the WG in accordance with
their own rules and procedures.” If we say “in accordance with their own rules
and procedures” then doesn’t that permit the respective SOs and ACs to choose
whether they want to appoint specific observers or whether they want to let
anyone who is interested participate as an observer? I am guessing that the
ccNSO approach will be anyone who volunteers is welcome. But I’m not sure how
the other SOs and ACs like to handle this.
Regarding SOIs the charter says: “Participants from SOs or ACs for which a
Statement of Interest is required for participation in a WG shall submit an SOI
in accordance with the rules applicable to that SO/AC (if any).” This seems to
imply that an SOI is not required if the applicable SO/AC doesn’t require one.
I think an SOI should be required by all WG Participants and I assume that that
is what is intended. Here’s some possible rewording to make it clear: “All
Participants must submit a Statement of Interest for participation in the WG.
Participants from SOs or ACs for which a Statement of Interest is required for
participation in a WG shall submit an SOI in accordance with the rules
applicable to that SO/AC (if any); others shall submit an SOI that provides
comparable information according to the rules of one of the SO/ACs for which
SOIs are required.” I’m ok with that approach.
Chuck
From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:35 PM
To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] For your review: revised draft charter
Dear DT members,
Please find attached the draft charter, revised following the call yesterday
and as reviewed by the Co-Chairs, in both CLEAN and REDLINED versions. Once we
are able to confirm a date and time for the next DT meeting, I will send you
the information about that as well. As such, please take a moment to fill out
the Doodle poll at your earliest convenience: http://doodle.com/4zur3s2auax8ivr8
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
* One World. One Internet. *
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|