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

Tue Aug 12 21:25:39 UTC 2014

I am OK with the current deaft

Saludos!

León

El 12/08/2014, a las 16:20, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
escribió:

All,

Regarding this thread on consensus / polling etc.  We have agreement in the
charter that there will be no voting and judicious (if any) use of polling.

As we head to the deadline for the document, are we OK with the latest
draft or does this mean edits are being proposed?

No need to respond to this question unless you feel (strongly?) that
additional edits are required before the 23h59 UTC deadline that we are
working towards.

Thanks,

Jonathan

*From:* cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
<cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky
*Sent:* 12 August 2014 14:03
*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 /
www.neustar.biz

*From: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
*Date: *Tuesday, August 12, 2014 at 5:32 AM
*To: *"tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn" <tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>, "Duchesneau,
Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us>, Chuck Gomes <
cgomes at verisign.com>, 'Allan MacGillivray' <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>,
'Julie Hammer' <julie.hammer at bigpond.com>
*Cc: *"CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org" <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>
*Reply-To: *"tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn" <tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>
*Date: *Tuesday 12 August 2014 11:03
*To: *"'Duchesneau, Stephanie'" <Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us>, Chuck
Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com>, 'Allan MacGillivray' <
allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>, 'Julie Hammer' <julie.hammer at bigpond.com>
*Cc: *"CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org" <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
<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
*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
------------------------------

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 <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
*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
<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
*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
------------------------------

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]*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
*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
<julie.hammer at bigpond.com>]
*Sent:* August-11-14 11:03 AM
*To:* Gomes, Chuck
*Cc:* Allan MacGillivray; 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> 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
<allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>]
*Sent:* Monday, August 11, 2014 10:44 AM
*To:* Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hammer; 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] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
*Sent:* August-11-14 10:40 AM
*To:* Julie Hammer; 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
<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
*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>
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
<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
*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
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dt-stewardship/attachments/20140812/89bb3b2f/attachment-0001.html>