Hi Sam,

I don't think the word 'group' is claimed anywhere in ICANN, so I don't
understand using the term 'subgroup' poses a problem or creates unclarity.

The 'subgroup on PDPs' follows PDPs, so I also don't understand how that
is an issue, similar to the 'subgroup on workstream 2'.

Best,

Niels



On 04/07/2016 03:43 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> Niels,
> 
> 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.
> 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" .
> 
> 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.
> 
> Sam
> 
> On 7 April 2016 at 14:59,
> <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> (deleted)
> 
> The aim of this*group* 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.
> 
> ----- On Apr 7, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Aarti Bhavana via
> cc-humanrights-research
> <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> Hi, 
> I'm a little confused about the division between *groups*. 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 *PDP
> subgroup*? If not, what will the *PDP subgroup *be doing? 
> 
> Best,
> Aarti 
> 
> 
> On 2016-04-07 9:27 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> 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:
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Subgroups
>>
>> Hope this creates a bit more clarity.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> On 04/07/2016 12:40 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>>> 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
>           [Rest Deleted]

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9