<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Niels, <br>
<br>
My comment was about the Sub Groups. In the postings discussing the
work of the WP the term "group" was used in this (below: edited)
posting, as well as PDP subgroup.<br>
I am simply urging that labels be used to clarify that this is a
Working Party, and either always use "subgroup" or something like
"hrWPgroupX" . <br>
<br>
I also wonder if calling something a "PDP" within this might also be
confusing since there is a formal meaning for a PDP process within
ICANN. I am just raising early questions concerning clarity in the
hopes of minimizing downstream confusion.<br>
<br>
Sam <br>
<font color="#990000"><br>
On 7 April 2016 at 14:59, <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:vidushi@cis-india.org" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vidushi@cis-india.org">vidushi@cis-india.org</a></a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<br>
(deleted)<br>
<br>
The aim of this<b> group</b> is in two parts : 1. to create
awareness about the various ways in which ICANN is impacting human
rights, and 2. to visualise, document and map cases for the same.
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div>
<div class="h5"><font color="#990000"><span>----- On Apr 7, 2016,
at 2:31 PM, Aarti Bhavana via cc-humanrights-research <<a
href="mailto:cc-humanrights-research@icann.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cc-humanrights-research@icann.org">cc-humanrights-research@icann.org</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
</span></font></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><font color="#990000">Hi, <br>
</font>
<div><font color="#990000">I'm a little confused about the
division between <b>groups</b>. I thought the research
subgroup will be working on topics that aren't bound by any
ongoing policy process or timeline, in order to give the group
more research freedom. Wouldn't topics 3 and 4 be dealt with
by the <b>PDP subgroup</b>? If not, what will the <b>PDP
subgroup </b>be doing? </font></div>
<font color="#990000"><br>
</font>
<div><font color="#990000">Best,</font></div>
<div><font color="#990000">Aarti </font></div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-04-07 9:27 AM, Niels ten Oever
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:57066035.6050105@digitaldissidents.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Sam,
Am not sure where you saw a reference to the CCWP as a WG. The CCWP has
three Sub Groups (1. ICANN and human rights research, 2. human rights in
ws2 and 3. human rights in PDPs), as also documented on the wiki:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Subgroups">https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Subgroups</a>
Hope this creates a bit more clarity.
All the best,
Niels
On 04/07/2016 12:40 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">All,
I hate to be the pedantic one here but as I understand this ccWP, it is
a bottom up initiative among ICANN participants. It has no ICANN
chartering process, etc. and hence carries the ad hoc Working Party (WP)
label. It is not a formal ICANN Working Group (WG).
I hope I am correct in asking that all communications use proper
identifiers, and call it a Working Party, and not a group, or there may
be unnecessary and troublesome confusion both inside ICANN and outside
ICANN.
Sam Lanfranco, NPOC
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
[Rest Deleted]<br>
</body>
</html>