I think Sam is raising a really important point. There is so much work going on it is getting confusing, eg. we already have the privacy sub working group of the PDP on WHOIS. So I would recommend using the term sub-party...sounds awful but avoids confusion. Unless someone can think of something better that is not already in use at ICANN. Subteam of the WP might also work...gives the lovely acronym STWP, what is not to love about that? cheers steph PS not volunteering for anything, sorry, up to my eyeballs in work on the WHO2. I feel it necessary to check the work of those summarizing documents, so that is a lot of reading. On 2016-04-07 8:43, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > Monika, > > I am just raising a question about process here. The ICANN Working > Group process has a very specific formula for chartering and creation. > Ad hoc groupings around issues (here human rights) are differentiated > as Working Parties. All I am suggesting is that labels be kept > distinct so that there is not confusion among the ICANN crowd, and > outside the ICANN crowd. How that is done for the parts of a Working > Party should be in ways that also minimize confusion. As you well know > in law, words in formal processes have precise meanings. > > On 2016-04-07 6:55 AM, Zalnieriute, Monika wrote: >> >> Sam, >> >> >> are You suggesting we cal the Research sub-group of the CCWP a sub-party? >> >> >> ---- >> >> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute >> >> Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I >> >> Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I >> cmds.ceu.edu I >> >> Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I >> icann.org I >> >> Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I >> zephiroplatform.org I >> >> Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I >> cihr.eu I >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of >> Zalnieriute, Monika <[log in to unmask]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 7, 2016 10:50 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: [cc-humanrights-research] [cc-humanrights] CCWP-HR >> Research: Call for volunteers (reply by 8th April) + Call Update >> >> I would say that the 'indivisibility' is a relative concept, just >> like human rights😊 >> >> >> ---- >> >> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute >> >> >> Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I >> >> Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I >> cmds.ceu.edu I >> >> Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I >> icann.org I >> >> Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I >> zephiroplatform.org I >> >> Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I >> cihr.eu I >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Sam >> Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 7, 2016 10:40 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: [cc-humanrights-research] [cc-humanrights] CCWP-HR >> Research: Call for volunteers (reply by 8th April) + Call Update >> 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]