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]