[gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

 I have added my comments IN ALL CAPS.
 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/AS DO I 
 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/AGREED
 I assume that they would be allowed to vote/YES
 although the question itself reflects an interesting difference in approach 
between the ccnso and the gnso/DON'T WANT TO FOCUS ON THOSE PESKY DIFFERENCE AT 
THE OUTSET  
 Our task is to come up with a set of recommendations regarding process and 
appropriate topics for cross constituency work - which necessarily precedes 
(AND ACCOMMODATES?) 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/FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS WORKING 
GROUP, WE WANT PARTICIPANTS TO BE OFFICIAL SO THAT THE FINDINGS WILL CARRY SOME 
WEIGHT.  WITH AT LEAST SOMEONE IN THAT OFFICIAL CAPACITY, SELF-NOMINATED 
OBSERVERS CAN BE ACCOMMODATED
  
 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/AGREED; AN SOI IS AN IMPORTANT 
PART OF THE LEGITIMACY OF THE WORKING GROUP.
  
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] RE: For your 
review: revised draft charter
From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 3/1/14 10:04 am
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, 
"gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

   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 / 
www.neustar.biz
 


 
From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Saturday, March 1, 2014 at 9:29 AM
 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx" 
<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] On 
Behalf Of Mary Wong
 Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:35 PM
 To: 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
 
 
 
* One World. One Internet. *