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

[Guru Acharya]

Ok. Agreed. So what do we do now? How do we proceed?


  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/20141023/482d0c5a/attachment.html>