[Internal-cg] ccTLD Points A & C / slide 22 (action point 3)

[Lynn St.Amour]

I support this (including Alissa's comments).

Lynn

On Sep 21, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Martin,
> 
> Thank you. Comments below.
> 
>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear all,
>>  
>> Thanks all for a constructive and useful dialogue on Friday & Saturday.
>>  
>> In response to the action on me (item 3) on ccTLD comments, I suggest the following wording for the note to the CWG:
>>  
>> We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG).
>>  
>> The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.”
>>  
>> The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005).  This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether the proposal could be adapted accordingly.
> 
> I would suggest adding:
> 
> “If the CWG agrees to adapt its proposal, please send us verbatim text for paragraph 1036 and any associated footnotes so that we know precisely how to edit the text in the combined transition proposal."
> 
>>  
>> We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283).  This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT.  While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member.  In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement.  We would welcome the CWG’s thoughts on this suggestion.
> 
> I would suggest deleting the last sentence above and replacing it with:
> 
> “If the CWG agrees with this suggestion and wishes to amend its proposal, please send us verbatim text to reflect the associated amendment.”
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
>>  
>> Keith Davidson and Wolf-Ulrich have both seen the proposed wording (although I have made some hopefully uncontroversial mods since then, so I’d welcome their confirmation that they are happy with the text).
>>  
>> Hope this helps
>>  
>>  
>> Martin
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org