Jump to content

Cross Community Working Group: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Jessica (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
14,952 edits
No edit summary
Jessica (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
14,952 edits
Line 13: Line 13:
==CCWG Formation==
==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.<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 20: 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?

Revision as of 16:40, 5 January 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]

  1. 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
  2. Does the issue cut across different SO/ACs? If Yes: it is suitable for a CCWG to be formed
  3. Is there broad community interest across SO/ACs to engage on this topic? If Yes: it is suitable for a CCWG to be formed
  4. 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
  5. Is it likely that resolving the issue through a CCWG will have a substantial budgetary impact?
  6. What is the expected outcome?
  7. Is the effort expected to produce recommendations that are intended to be submitted to the ICANN Board for action/consideration?
  8. What other alternatives are available to address the issue?
  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
Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=Cross_Community_Working_Group&oldid=1341814"