Cross Community Working Group: Difference between revisions

Jessica (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Jessica (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
* 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>
==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