<html>
<body>
We have two capable co-chairs and I am happy to leave the decision to
them. If you feel strongly about this, then you are free to raise the
issue on the CWG mailing list. <br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 16/11/2015 04:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hello Alan,<br><br>
What we are basically doing by this request is modifying the charter,
that is exactly the process that is happening right now[1] so I don't
really think there will be any other issue/challenge with referencing the
update in the charter. It is the charter that determines the scope of
work of the CWG and when there is an expansion (which is agreed to by the
Chartering organisation) the charter should reflect such.<br><br>
While I support the expansion of CWG scope to cover the intent of the
request, I believe it should be reflected in the charter. This will not
require more process than we are already going through right now.
<br><br>
That said since Co-Chairs have already sent out the message in this
manner(which is cool), the CWG should reference this document (with
formal approval of Chartering organisations in the charter). It's a minor
process/documentation that we should not ignore and let go on.<br><br>
Regards<br>
1. In the event it is decided that the charter needs to be modified to
address the omission or unreasonable <br>
impact, the co-chairs may propose to modify the charter. A modification
shall only be effective after <br>
adoption of the adjusted charter by the chartering organizations in
accordance with their own rules and <br>
procedures.<br><br>
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 16 Nov 2015 21:06, "Alan Greenberg"
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Seun, I believe that this lightweight process is instead of updating
the charter, which would require new drafting and then formal action on
behalf of all of the chartering bodies to approve the revision. If the
chartering bodies all agree to this method, we have effectively changed
the mandate of the CWG without having to go through the formalities -
quicker and easier.<br><br>
<dd>These messages (asking for and getting permission from the chartering
bodies) will form part of the overall documentation for the CWG and
should be sufficient.<br><br>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<dd>At 16/11/2015 11:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Hello,<br><br>
<dd>I believe it's in order and I recommend that while ALAC supports
this, we should recommend that the CWG charter be updated accordingly or
at least the communiqué be formerly referenced in the
charter.<br><br>
<dd>Regards<br>
<dd>Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
<dd>Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
<dd>On 16 Nov 2015 16:47, "Alan Greenberg"
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>Please see following message. <br>
<dd>I believe this makes sense. If anyone has concerns with this, please
let us know. Based on any negative comments, I will initiate a Consensus
Call or formal vote next Monday, 23 November. The Consensus Call or vote
will be for ALAC Members only, but of course, the discussion is open to
anyone on this list.<br>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC
<dd>Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, CCWG-Accountability, ICANN
Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff. <br>
<br>
<dd>Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship,
<dd>
<dd>Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation<br>
<dd>At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG)
confirmed designation of the operational communities to be responsible
for direct implementation oversight of their proposals.
<dd>
<dd>The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course of ICANN54 and
discussed this role and we continued this discussion in a subsequent
meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An oversight role is not
specifically detailed in our Charter, but it is the CWG-Stewardship̢۪s
s view that our role in implementation is to ensure that the
implementation is consistent with the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and
furthermore, to provide input on the implementation work when required by
staff working on the implementation or, if and when necessary, to bring
the implementation work back in line with the intent of the Final
Proposal.
<dd>
<dd>In our view, the most logical option is to have the CWG-Stewardship
working group continue in its current form and with the responsibility to
monitor the implementation and provide input where needed. Of course,
this responsibility would include regular updates to the Chartering
Organizations via the appointed members as well as consultations with the
Chartering Organizations should issues be identified that are deemed
without this specific remit.
<dd>
<dd>We note here for your information, that while the CWG-Stewardship
Final Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has
remained active and therefore available when needed. This has included
being available to answer questions from the ICG, or to monitor the
CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to coordinate with the other
operational communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual
property rights.
<dd>
<dd>As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not specifically address
implementation, we would like to ensure that the CWG-Stewardship’s
proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent with
the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and role
of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to proceed to oversee the
implementation work as described above unless there are objections from
one or more Chartering Organizations.
<dd>
<dd>We would like to emphasize that the CWG-Stewardship does not intend
to change its working methods in light of this ongoing role. The group
will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome
informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational
experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase.
<dd>
<dd>Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your ongoing
support of our work. Please let us know of any concerns by no later than
30 November 2015.
<dd>
<dd>Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr
<dd>CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs</blockquote>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>ALAC mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
</blockquote>
</dl>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>