[CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal and an alternative option

[Martin Boyle]

Hi all,

If we are to defer, what are we waiting for?  Another proposal will be ready by when?  And whatever the proposal origins, it will come without any benefit of any wider discussion.  

Certainly in Frankfurt the discussion focussed fairly quickly on a functions-based solution (as opposed to the form-led ideas of the straw-men.  There was general consensus with that, recognising that we would spend a lot of time on discussing models without any realistic expectation of consensus.  OK, there was a degree of nervousness and everyone giving a bit. But no one really had an alternative that offered a reasonable basis for consensus.

I recognise that the current draft is loaded with a lot of stuff that still needs to be resolved.  (Thank you Olivier, for your analysis:  a useful checklist for us as we move forward.  Alan's points of concern, reiterated on last week's call, likewise.)  But frankly I've not heard anything that is not also likely to apply to other proposals.  We can delay further, but I feel we will simply be delaying, and we haven't got the luxury of time.

Phil Corwin's comment on how the names piece will fit in with the other elements is quite valid and as a member of the ICG I recognise that we might have a really difficulty of reconciling the different strands.  However, however long the CWG assesses how it might assure the best fit, until we see all the proposals and start the cross-community discussion, we are not going to get anywhere nearer to the solution.

Given time, I'm sure we could develop a beautiful, well-reasoned and complete solution.  Whether we would have more consensus than we have at the moment, I'd doubt.  Would we be anywhere nearer finding a three-function solution?  Ditto.  The excellent is the enemy of the good.

As for the link to ICANN accountability:  with what we've got from Frankfurt, I think we have a reasonable idea of what we need from stream 1.  We cannot tell stream 1 what answer we want, but we can tell it what issue(s) we need them to consider.  Again, if we seek to engineer the whole piece, we risk simply missing the deadline and trespassing on the responsibilities of others.

Best

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty
Sent: 30 November 2014 17:21
To: Phil Corwin; Olivier Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal and an alternative option


On 29/11/2014 17:03, Phil Corwin wrote:
> I salute the entire group, especially those who gathered in Frankfurt, 
> for achieving the development of a remarkably detailed first draft for 
> public comment in a very brief time - and yet, surveying this 
> dialogue, I have to ask, is there a broad  consensus within the CWG 
> for what is about to be posted on Monday? Because if there is not then 
> the time should be taken to develop that full consensus, rather than 
> put out for public comment something which seems to be generating the 
> characteristics of drafter's remorse.

This question is now extremely urgent.

Do the organisers consider there is a consensus? To my mind that's a clear "No", but it's not for me to call it.

If not, do they still planning to go ahead and solicit community consensus for a document that doesn't even command consensus amongst the committee that prepared it?

If it's not being published tomorrow as the CWG's draft proposal, are we setting a new target date to have a consensus on the CWG?

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA


_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship