[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review

Tue Aug 12 13:03:11 UTC 2014

I think this illustrates how difficult things become when one attempts to parse “consensus” - which is why I strongly support efforts to achieve real consensus and avoid polling and voting, etc.

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 at 5:32 AM
To: "tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>" <tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>>, "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us>>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>, 'Allan MacGillivray' <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>, 'Julie Hammer' <julie.hammer at bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer at bigpond.com>>
Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review

Hi Tijani, all,

To share a little bit of background on how the consensus designation process is typically done in GNSO WGs, the Chair typically doesn't only look at the numerical make-up of the WG but also takes into account their affiliation when making an assessment of which consensus level has been achieved. For example, if all those objecting to a certain recommendation are from the same stakeholder group or constituency, while everyone else is in support, the chair may still label that as consensus, even if there are 30 members of the same SG/C vs 30 other members – this is to avoid capture of a WG as otherwise groups might be encouraged to add more individuals from one SG/C to the WG to swing the level of support (and why polling / voting is not recommended). So I presume that is why Chuck meant that numbers do not necessarily matter as hopefully the chair(s) would follow a similar process here where they would also look at the support / absence of support of an SO/AC instead of only counting individual voices when making their assessment.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>>
Reply-To: "tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>" <tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>>
Date: Tuesday 12 August 2014 11:03
To: "'Duchesneau, Stephanie'" <Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us>>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>, 'Allan MacGillivray' <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>, 'Julie Hammer' <julie.hammer at bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer at bigpond.com>>
Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review

Chuck and all,

You mentioned in the yesterday call that the number of members per group wouldn’t matter since no formal vote will be used for decision making. I’m afraid I don’t agree since the consensus (used for decision making) will be affected by the number of member per group. Suppose we are 5 ALAC members with 7 GNSO members on a WG where there are only ALAC and GNSO as chartering organizations (total WG members=12). When we have to decide by consensus, the chair can feel there is a consensus if 7 GNSO members agree and 4 or 3 ALAC members disagree. But if there are as many members from ALAC as from GNSO, the consensus will be different.
The only case where the number doesn’t matter is a decision by full consensus.

Nevertheless, I agree with you insisting on avoiding any vote to make a decision by the CWG.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone:  + 216 41 649 605
Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
Fax:       + 216 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

De :cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Duchesneau, Stephanie
Envoyé : lundi 11 août 2014 22:28
À : 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Allan MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer
Cc : CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review

Hi Chuck,

Would the following better address your concerns:

In appointing their members, the chartering organizations should note that the CWG’s decision-making methodologies require that CWG members act by consensus, and that polling will only be used in rare instances and with the recognition that such polls do not constitute votes.

Stephanie Duchesneau
Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
Office:+1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623/www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 4:24 PM
To: Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'Allan MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer
Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review

Thanks Stephanie.  The minor edits looks okay to me.

With regard to the sentence you crafted below, I personally prefer it if we directly include a description of what we want them to see rather than making a reference to because I suspect that some people will not take the time to go to the reference.  If we do it as you suggest, I suggest we specifically refer to the section in the charter that contains what we want them to review.   What do others think?

Chuck

From: Duchesneau, Stephanie [mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 11:42 AM
To: 'Allan MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review

Added the following to language regarding Membership criteria:

In appointing members the CWG, the chartering organizations should note the CWG’s decision-making methodologies with respect to consensus calls and polling.

Have made a few other minor edits throughout reflected in the attached, which I believe are non-substantive/reflective of previous group discussion.

Stephanie
Stephanie Duchesneau
Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
Office:+1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623/www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

From:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]>On Behalf Of Allan MacGillivray
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 11:04 AM
To: Julie Hammer; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review

I am also comfortable with this wording.  Thanks Chuck.

From: Julie Hammer [mailto:julie.hammer at bigpond.com]
Sent: August-11-14 11:03 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Allan MacGillivray; CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review

Hi Chuck,

I think this is better wording and am happy with this.  Many thanks.

Cheers,  Julie

On 12 Aug 2014, at 12:53 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:

Thanks Allan.  Now I know what the intent was.  Would the following work:  “That proposal may include alternativeoptions for specific features within it, provided that each option carries comparable support from the CWG. ”

Chuck

From: Allan MacGillivray [mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:44 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hammer; CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review

Chuck – I worked on this with Julie.  The objective here was to give the CWG the flexibility of providing more than one option, but not the flexibility to provide dissenting opinions, that is options on which there is no consensus e.g. ‘we are happy with any of these options because we have achieved the same level of consensus on all of them’.

Allan

From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: August-11-14 10:40 AM
To: Julie Hammer; CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Importance: High

Thanks Julie.  The second sentence isn’t clear to me.  If I had to explain what it means to others, I don’t think I could do that.  Can you possibly tweak it some?  What do you mean by ‘specific features’?  What kind of features?  Maybe some examples would help.  Also, what does ‘the same level of consensus’ mean?  Same level of consensus as what?  Do you simply mean ‘each option has consensus support of the group’?

Chuck

From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hammer
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:09 AM
To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review

Hi Everyone,

I propose that the first sentence in the section titled 'Goals and Objectives' be amended to read:

The primary goal of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal (CWG) will be to produce a consolidated transition proposal for the elements of the IANA Functions relating to the Domain Name System.  That proposal may include options for specific features within it, provided that each option carries the same level of consensus from the CWG.

Cheers,  Julie

On 11 Aug 2014, at 6:44 pm, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>> wrote:

Thanks Marika and CWG Colleagues,

The agenda below is the one I expect we will now follow.

As proposed a little over a week ago and also below, I think the realistic way to work through the charter in the time allocated for the call is to seek objections to / concerns with the current wording.
To the extent that members are OK with the wording, we’ll take that as read.

Many thanks to those who have contributed to getting this in such good shape over a relatively short time,

Talk with you all at 13h00 UTC.

Jonathan

From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: 08 August 2014 12:22
To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for Monday's DT meeting, subject to revisions by the co-chairs and input from the DT. Having discussed this with Jonathan, we would like to encourage you to identify any other items beyond those listed in agenda item 2 that in your view need to be further discussed by the DT – we will operate under the assumption that apart from those items already identified and additional items that may get flagged prior to the meeting, the current language / proposed edits as in the latest version of the charter as attached are acceptable by all and do not need further discussion.

Please note that in the attached version (based on the version that Julie sent earlier today), I've added some proposed wording to the 'additional resources required' section to highlight that this is something the CWG should preferably focus on at an early stage as it is unlikely that the DT at this point in time will be in a position to identify what additional resources the CWG may need.

If you have any comments and/or questions, please share those with the list.

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda – DT Meeting – Monday 11 August at 13.00 UTC

  1.  Welcome & roll call
  2.  Draft Charter - Review open items (membership, no consensus, additional resources – DT members to identify which other sections / items need further review ahead of the meeting)
  3.  Confirm deadline for final edits / comments with aim to have DT Chairs submit charter to all SO/ACs by 14 August at the latest for consideration
  4.  Any next steps for the DT while SO/ACs consider the charter for approval?
  5.  AOB
  6.  Closure
_______________________________________________
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=RwKIM8ABPpWRsMQbOZ%2BGU03rJv9LI3HVmugPbVx18rI%3D%0A&m=R2MFGAO8TWz4spoqmWsUjlrYVAhlNkp4WANpC1AuiPk%3D%0A&s=4336acc7f6b1b0434e02fb9db39d3ed91d0da8ae916b626d8f6ff9375d346272>

________________________________
[http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=5oMOc94Hn3vSLhIopEY7765OI%2FX745xMkS%2B9KXzo0nE%3D%0A&s=55fae77cfb31a29b01fe7c9afe5e94809ddf9eb1972c5167d7fe391be4eee00b>

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=5oMOc94Hn3vSLhIopEY7765OI%2FX745xMkS%2B9KXzo0nE%3D%0A&s=55fae77cfb31a29b01fe7c9afe5e94809ddf9eb1972c5167d7fe391be4eee00b> est active.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dt-stewardship/attachments/20140812/a6c2ef04/attachment-0001.html>