[CWG-RFP3] Proposed Agenda for Wednesday 12 November Meeting

[Greg Shatan]

Seun,

As stated on the call and in my cover email, these are all "Strawmen,"
intended to serve as jumping off points and not to exclude other
alternatives (though ultimately, we need to exclude alternatives or we will
not have a proposal).  I would encourage you to put forth (ideally in the
same format as the strawman or the "strawman matrix") a proposal for the
use of an existing body.  In particular, what existing body would you
propose to use?  And if it is ICANN, how would you deal with concerns of
lack of independence, assuming that IANA also remains within ICANN? Also,
how would this existing body be able to enter into contracts to replace the
IANA contract?  On the other hand, if you are talking about a different
existing body (e.g., ISOC) that probably raises other questions.

I am not saying this to discourage your line of thought.  Rather, I am
saying this to encourage you to flesh out this proposal.

Thanks!

Greg

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> Thanks for sending these documents and i agree that its a great effort.
> However i will not agree that it captures what has been discussed on this
> mailing list so far (except for version 2 which seem to make an attempt).
> In general, the 3 versions are all with the intent of creating a new body
> which is not what has been entirely said on this list. I observed that some
> (including myself) has mentioned the use of an existing body that empowers
> the existing communities within ICANN.
> However since creating a body is what you have just presented, I will
> attempt to address the one that seem to put multistakeholder community into
> consideration (not that i agree with creating a body):
>
> From the section below:
>
>    1.
>
>       *Registry Operators**. *PROC will be a multistakeholder
>       organization, with representatives of from registry operators (both ccNSO
>       and non-ccNSO), other GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies, GAC,
>       SSAC, RSSAC and ALAC, as well as representatives of the “Names Community” *not
>       directly involved in ICANN Stakeholder Organizations and Advisory
>       Committees.*
>
> I don't understand how this can be achieved. I also see this a replication
> of community which will result to wastage of resources and in the long run
> deny participation from those who lack enough resources to participate in
> the multiple environments that will be created from this act. I would have
> thought having such committee formation (a CWG variant if you like) who
> then perform the mentioned task will be ideal. I don't see why it needs to
> be a registered body in other to perform those tasks (except contract
> awarding ofcourse).
>
> Regards
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:28 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> All:
>>
>> In the course of preparing for tomorrow's call, including discussions
>> with the Co-Chairs of the CWG and other subgroup leads, it was decided that
>> a preferred course of action would be to prepare three "Strawman Proposals"
>> rather than a single "Framework Document" with multiple variables.  These
>> three Strawman Proposals are attached.  The proposals are organized on a
>> consistent outline, largely taken from the "Variables" document.  This will
>> allow us to consider the proposals both "vertically" and "horizontally"
>> (i.e., across the documents), and to swap sections as we move toward the
>> ultimate deliverable of a single proposal.  The proposals are intended to
>> capture most of the major alternatives discussed on this list, the CWG
>> list, and in our calls, as well as in other documents circulated in the
>> community.  However, if a particular alternative has not been captured in
>> any proposal, that does not mean that it is "dead" or even disfavored.
>> Similarly, I expect there will be additional issues to be considered in any
>> proposal, and these should be captured as well, either on the call or
>> thereafter.
>>
>> I apologize for the lateness of the hour; I hope you will see that the
>> alternatives are not unfamiliar, even if they are now repackaged in
>> proposal form.  In our call tomorrow morning, I would like to review and
>> work through these proposals in lieu of items 2 and 3 of the agenda.  In
>> the course of that review, we should aim to consider pro's and con's, which
>> will be added to a document during our call, and then posted or circulated
>> for further editing.  I expect that the Strawman Proposals will be
>> similarly posted or circulated.
>>
>> I look forward to our call.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Grace Abuhamad <
>> grace.abuhamad at icann.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Here is the proposed agenda for the RFP3 subgroup meeting on Wednesday:
>>>
>>>    1. Welcome and Roll Call
>>>    2. Review of Variables Document (link here
>>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PIySH4OEdebff1lU7foynDe8S3PZEvjG2W_UCpJamM/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>    )
>>>    3. Review of Framework Document (to be circulated before call)
>>>    4. Live-Editing of Pros and Cons Document (to be circulated before
>>>    call)
>>>    5. Thoughts on this sub-group on how best to use time in Frankfurt
>>>    6. Assignments for fleshing out parts of Framework Document
>>>    7. AOB
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Grace
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
>>> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
>> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141112/9fbf8c9e/attachment.html>