[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Tue Aug 12 19:05:23 UTC 2014
Hi,
I have a different feeling about the times we have used polling in GNSO
groups and tend to be against it, and remember arguing against their use
in a variety of WGs. So tend to agree with Becky and others on this.
But I think the way we have the charter now, leaves it in there as a
tool, a tool with a warning. let the chairs argue about it if when they
feel it is needs and going to be helpful.
I hope what is int the document is a good enough consensus point.
BTW< I am fine with the doc as it stands. I made it available to the
NCSG discussion list and what little comment I got was praise for being
well thought out.
avri
On 12-Aug-14 14:38, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Becky,
>
>
>
> As I think I have tried to communicate already, I fully agree with you
> with regard to voting, but I disagree regarding polling. I have been in
> multiple WGs where polling was used very effectively to get a sense of
> the level of consensus and whether additional work is needed. It really
> hasn’t been that hard for the chair(s) to decide the level of
> consensus. How would you recommend determining what level of consensus
> exists? Polling can be as simple as asking whether there are any who do
> not support a position. In the case of the GNSO, polling can be used to
> determine what level of support there is from each of its SGs and
> constituencies; this is helpful because any recommendations will
> ultimately have to be approved by the GNSO Council, where formal voting
> will occur. By getting a reasonable sense of the level of support
> earlier in the process, the chances are increased that Council approval
> will happen without having to go back to the WG.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:*Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:03 AM
> *To:* Marika Konings; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn; Duchesneau, Stephanie;
> Gomes, Chuck; 'Allan MacGillivray'; 'Julie Hammer'
> *Cc:* CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version
> of charter for review
>
>
>
> 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 <http://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, 4^th 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, 4^th 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <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.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
>
More information about the CWG-DT-Stewardship
mailing list