Cross Community Working Group: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:53, 24 February 2022

A Cross-Community Working Group is an ICANN community of practice that allows Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) 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.^[1]

Key Characteristics

Adoption of a single charter drafted by a cross-community drafting team comprising

participants from all SO/ACs participating in the CCWG

the drafting team relies on the principles and recommendations contained in the "Uniform Framework of Principles and Recommendations for Cross Community Working Groups" document
The chartering organizations appoint members according to their own rules and procedures, including the need to provide for a Statement of Interest
Diversity of representation to the extent feasible, including geographical region, stakeholder group and relevant skill sets
members report regularly to their respective chartering organizations
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
Sufficient opportunity should be provided for non-participating organizations to give input on draft CCWG deliverables^[2]
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>CCWG Uniform Framework 2016, pg. 13, GNSO, ICANN</ref>

CCWG Formation

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.^[3]

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?

ICANN CCWGs

References

[1] CCWG Uniform Framework 2016, pg. 7, GNSO, ICANN

[2] CCWG Uniform Framework 2016, pg. 2, GNSO, ICANN

[3] CCWG Uniform Framework 2016, pg. 7, GNSO, ICANN

[1]

[2]

[3]