14,952
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + Line 9:
Line 9: − + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
A Cross-Community Working Group is an [[ICANN]] community of practice that allows Supporting Organizations ([[SO]]s) and Advisory Committees ([[AC]]s) to work together to address an issue of common interest that does not fall within the scope of any single SO or AC. A CCWG is intended to inform and enhance or supplement policy development work, and may precede it, but does not replace it.<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf CCWG Uniform Framework 2016, GNSO, ICANN]</ref>
A Cross-Community Working Group is an [[ICANN]] community of practice that allows Supporting Organizations ([[SO]]s) and Advisory Committees ([[AC]]s) to work together to address an issue of common interest that does not fall within the scope of any single SO or AC. A CCWG is intended to inform and enhance or supplement policy development work, and may precede it, but does not replace it.<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf CCWG Uniform Framework 2016, pg. 7, GNSO, ICANN]</ref>
==Key Characteristics==
==Key Characteristics==
* Adoption of a single charter drafted by a cross-community drafting team comprising
* Adoption of a single charter drafted by a cross-community drafting team comprising
* Deliverables are submitted to all the chartering organizations for adoption/approval/support/non-objection and then to the [[ICANN Board]]
* Deliverables are submitted to all the chartering organizations for adoption/approval/support/non-objection and then to the [[ICANN Board]]
* The chartering organizations shall not change the content of the deliverables
* The chartering organizations shall not change the content of the deliverables
* Sufficient opportunity should be provided for non-participating organizations to give input on draft CCWG deliverables<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf CCWG Uniform Framework 2016, GNSO, ICANN]</ref>
* Sufficient opportunity should be provided for non-participating organizations to give input on draft CCWG deliverables<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf CCWG Uniform Framework 2016, pg. 2, GNSO, ICANN]</ref>
==CCWG Formation==
Chartering organizations answer the following questions to determine whether a CCWG should be formed. Some are closed questions (Yes/No) while others are open-ended.<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf CCWG Uniform Framework 2016, pg. 7, GNSO, ICANN]</ref>
# Is the issue outside of the scope of policy development for a specific SO or remit of an AC?
If Yes: it is suitable for a CCWG to be formed
# Does the issue cut across different SO/ACs? If Yes: it is suitable for a CCWG to be formed
# Is there broad community interest across SO/ACs to engage on this topic? If Yes: it is suitable for a CCWG to be formed
# Are there sufficient community and staff resources available to form and support a CCWG? If Yes: it is suitable for a CCWG to be formed
# Is it likely that resolving the issue through a CCWG will have a substantial budgetary impact?
# What is the expected outcome?
# Is the effort expected to produce recommendations that are intended to be submitted to the ICANN Board for
action/consideration?
# What other alternatives are available to address the issue?