[CWG-Stewardship] Community input listserv

Sat Oct 18 16:34:57 UTC 2014

Chuck:

Don Hollander here, from APTLD.  Let me respond to a couple of points you’ve made in recent posts:

1) With regard to outreach, the four regional organisations (ROs) of ccTLD managers (AFTLD, APTLD, CENTR & LACTLD) are each taking steps to reach out to their members and non-members.  We are taking a variety of approaches, but they include: Sending e-mails, sending physical letters in the post, and making phone calls).  The ccNSO has already established a global list of ccTLD managers and has used that.  Our goal is to make sure that everyone is aware of the event and has an opportunity to participate if they want.

2) With regard to engagement within our communities - APTLD had an extensive discussion during its recent meeting in Brisbane; CENTR did a similar discussion at their recent meeting in Brussels, AFTLD organised a Webinar, and LACTLD will address it in their upcoming meeting in Aruba.

3) The four ROs are also running a survey on the topic among our members and making it available to non-member ccTLDs.  We know (or should know) that there are fundamental differences between ccTLDs and gTLDs, but if the gTLD community would like to use our survey as a base it may allow inter-community analysis.  (We unashamedly took some ideas for our survey from ARIN (with their permission)).

4) Earlier you indicated that members (as opposed to participants) of the CWG-IANA should keep their own constituencies up-to-date on activities and discussions of the CWG.  I would suggest that, at least for the names communities, the Members prepare a weekly report to their constituencies.  If it’s structured as a shared activity, the cc’s and g’s members will only have to do a report once a month - and given the timeline that doesn’t seem onerous.

I hope that all members and participants of this CWG are aware of the very clear differences between ccTLDs and gTLDs.

With kindest regards to you all…

Don

On 19/10/2014, at 4:19 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> In response to the question “how will external participants in the community participate in the work of this group”, let me share what the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) is doing.
>  
> We are close to finalizing and implementing a plan to reach out to gTLD registries who are not members or observers of the RySG and also to new gTLD applicants who have not joined the RySG as observers to invite them to participate fully in our work in support of the CWG work.  They will be allowed to participate in the RySG’s discussions and consensus development processes regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition without becoming an official member or observer of the RySG and their views will be incorporated into RySG positions that our representative on the CWG will communicate to the CWG.
>  
> Hopefully other ICANN and GNSO groups will take similar steps but I cannot speak for them.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf OfSeun Ojedeji
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 1:13 PM
> To: Greg Shatan
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Community input listserv
>  
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps my question should have been phrased more broadly: how will external participants in the community, especially those not in an SO/AC structure, participate in the work of this group?
> 
> I think this is also a question that is valid for other 2 communities (especially the numbers) and one of the proposed ways is to first develop the draft and then put it up for global comments. Which is what i believe this community should also do. As i had suggested during our first face2face; it will be good to have a phased public comment period, one that presents the first draft (to receive comments from the community and beyond) and the one that represents the updated version (this can have a shorter comment period). Overall we should provide the medium to receive inputs from other non-ICANN based communities and it will be up to them to determine if they want to participate of not.
> 
> However in all these, there is need to appreciate time constraint but at the same time, not loose the focus of having a proposal that achieves consensus of the broader community.
> 
> Cheers!
> An open mailbox/listserv has its good and bad points (e.g., spam, monitoring, feedback) and I don't want to get hung up on that as the only method for participation. Rather, we should look at the broader question and consider all possibilities.
> 
> Greg Shatan
> 
> On Oct 15, 2014 11:34 PM, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's why it's a CWG!
> 
> On Thursday, 16 October 2014, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe the NTIA has a requirement that the process is open for input from the entire affected community.  While we are each here as representatives of SO/ACs, there are members of the names community who are not active in ICANN  Therefore, it would seem to be a good idea to have a listserv where direct comments can be received and we are not vulnerable to criticism regarding the openness of our process.
> 
> On Oct 15, 2014 12:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> i refer to the Names Community as a whole.
> 
> Ain't those already represented on this list? OR are you referring to a situation where entire community discuss in a global list and at the same time discuss in their respective community? Which i think could make things a little structurally dis-organised.
>  
> Cheers!
> Greg
> 
> On Oct 15, 2014 12:00 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we have an email or listserv for such input?
> 
> It will depend on what community is referred to here as i believe working group members are supposed to relay information to their communities.
> 
> Cheers!
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> 
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>  
> 
> 
> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> 
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> 
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>  
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Don Hollander
General Manager
gm at aptld.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141019/5aab241b/attachment-0001.html>