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, <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[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 <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[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]