Line 1: |
Line 1: |
− | 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> | + | A '''Cross Community Working Group''' (CCWG) 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 |
Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| * 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, pg. 2, 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> |
| + | * In developing its output, work plan, and reports, the CCWG shall act by consensus and designate each position as either full consensus (where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection) or consensus (where a small minority disagrees, but most agree)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. 13, GNSO, ICANN]</ref> |
| ==CCWG Formation== | | ==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>
| + | At least two drafting organizations must answer the following questions to determine whether they should form a CCWG. Some questions are closed (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? | + | # 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 |
− | 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 | | # 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 | | # Is there broad community interest across SO/ACs to engage on this topic? If Yes: it is suitable for a CCWG to be formed |
Line 19: |
Line 19: |
| # Is it likely that resolving the issue through a CCWG will have a substantial budgetary impact? | | # Is it likely that resolving the issue through a CCWG will have a substantial budgetary impact? |
| # What is the expected outcome? | | # What is the expected outcome? |
− | # Is the effort expected to produce recommendations that are intended to be submitted to the ICANN Board for | + | # Is the effort expected to produce recommendations that are intended to be submitted to the ICANN Board for action/consideration? |
− | action/consideration? | |
| # What other alternatives are available to address the issue? | | # What other alternatives are available to address the issue? |
| + | ==ICANN CCWGs== |
| + | * [[Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions]] (CWG-Stewardship) |
| + | * [[Cross Community Committee on Accessibility]] |
| + | * [[Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability]] |
| + | * [[Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance]] |
| + | * [[Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds]] |
| + | * [[Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains]] |
| + | |
| + | ==References== |
| + | |
| + | [[Category:Working Groups]] |
| + | [[Category:Featured]] |