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