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, 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 |
Line 9: |
Line 9: |
| * 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? |