[CWG-Stewardship] Notes and action items from F2F meeting

[Gomes, Chuck]

Milton,

I don't think that relying mostly on public comment periods is a very good approach to the multi-stakeholder model and certainly not very bottom-up.  Comment periods are useful for checking the results of consensus processes and are very important in that regard, i.e., for a last call as you suggest.  But getting broad input at the end seems too late to me.

What process do you think would be duplicated?

Chuck

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 2:09 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: Notes and action items from F2F meeting

Chuck
Every chartering organization is represented on the CWG. What stops you from having all participants, including people within the so-called chartering organizations, provide public comment on a "last call" proposal at the same time? Why must every organization run a separate process to formally "adopt" a proposal when their representatives are the ones who made the proposal? Why duplicate process?

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Regarding the timeline, as I stated in our in-person meeting in L.A., I have concerns about the feasibility of the next to last step (Adoption by chartering organizations of final transition proposal) being done in 11 days.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141018/a7e99c5a/attachment.html>