[CWG-Stewardship] [CWG-RFP3] Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements

[Allan MacGillivray]

Guru – I am more used to using an approach in which different options are developed and then assessing them, that is, including ‘pro’s and ‘con’s’.   To use your example, the ability to change the IANA operator in future would be represented as a ‘pro’, rather than as an a priori  parameter to include or reject the option.  We obviously need a range of options but I would not see the group itself having to come to a consensus on any particular option.   That is something for the CWG as a whole.  The charter for the CWG has provision for what it calls ‘Decision-Making Methodologies’.

Allan

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya
Sent: October-23-14 8:35 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] [CWG-RFP3] Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements

Can participants of Sub-Group 3 [CWG-RFP3] suggest a methodology for reaching consensus on an option/scenario for the transition?

The Wiki for the Sub-Group 3 [CWG-RFP3] is here:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG-RFP3+-+Proposed+Post-Transition+Oversight+and+Accountability+Arrangements

Note 2 on the Wiki suggests that "Note 2: This sub-group may wish to further split the work load depending on the number of options (scenarios) it wishes to work on."

I suggest one possible methodology for moving forward
(please suggest other methodologies as well)


1) Identify all possible options/scenarios

2) Identify the parameters that differentiate the options/scenarios
For example, does the option allow the community to change the IANA operator in the future? (YES/NO); does the option require CCNSO/GNSO to organise outside ICANN? (YES/NO); etc. These differentiating parameters need not be in the form of principles - just parameters that differentiate the options.

3) Discuss parameters to identify preferred attributes of parameters
For example, Milton strongly feels that the community should be able to change the IANA operator in the future (YES). Others may have similar or different views. We can discuss all differentiating parameters and try to determine if we have consensus on attributes of any of the parameters.

4) Use preferred attributes of parameters to eliminate options
If there is consensus on any parameter, then that parameter should be used to eliminate options. For example, any option that does not allow the community to change IANA operator in the future may be discarded.

5) Depending on remaining options after the process of elimination, decide the next steps.
This may lead us to Note 2 where we work on different proposals in parallel.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141023/5acf6c36/attachment.html>