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

[Keith Davidson]

Agree with the text including this suggested additional text.

Cheers

Keith

On 23/09/2015 11:17 a.m., Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Upon further reflection I would suggest one addition below.
>
>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
>> <mailto: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.”
>
> I would suggest adding an additional sentence at the end of the
> paragraph above:
>
> “Please let us know if you agree to this amendment.”
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
>> 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 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC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.
>> 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.
>> 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 <mailto: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
>