[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Tue Aug 12 19:31:38 UTC 2014
Avri,
I would like to better understand why you are against polling with examples of how it has been problematic. Also, without any polling, how would you assess the level of consensus on an issue?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:05 PM
To: cwg-dt-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
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-stewardshi
> p-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/mailm
> an/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=RwK
> IM8ABPpWRsMQbOZ%2BGU03rJv9LI3HVmugPbVx18rI%3D%0A&m=R2MFGAO8TWz4spoqmWs
> UjlrYVAhlNkp4WANpC1AuiPk%3D%0A&s=4336acc7f6b1b0434e02fb9db39d3ed91d0da
> 8ae916b626d8f6ff9375d346272>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ
> 50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow
> OGDBoZw%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=lQ
> 50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow
> OGDBoZw%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
>
_______________________________________________
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