[CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

Mon Feb 2 15:06:06 UTC 2015

+ 1 Chuck and echoing many of Milton's concerns.

Some of the wording in the introductory section also gave me pause. For 
example: /with a section added on an “Internal-to-ICANN” solution as a 
replacement f//or the “Contract Co. option - /I would have thought this 
should read "additional/alternative option" not "a replacement for the 
ContractCo option".    Another example is where it says "/There is not 
enough support for the Contract Co. option at this time to allow the CWG 
to continue developing only this option." / I don't recall this being a 
CWG conclusion - rather members/participants of the CWG proposed adding 
additional models/options which was welcomed.  We need to be very 
careful in the phrasing.

Matthew

On 2/2/2015 1:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> I agree with Milton that this document should be as neutral as 
> possible with regard to the various options and I thought it was close 
> to achieving that.  In fact, an earlier version included the pros and 
> cons of each of the options and I suggested those be removed so that 
> community members could make their own judgments without CWG 
> influence.  To address Milton’s concern, I am now more inclined not to 
> include the results of the surveys but rather just provide links to 
> the results.  Besides, we were very clear that the surveys were not 
> intended to be statistically significant so we should avoid 
> impressions that we are using the results as if they were.  I think 
> they were very helpful in guiding our review of public comments within 
> the CWG, but we need to avoid not reading too much from the results.
>
> In my opinion, the main objective of the discussion document is to 
> generate productive feedback in Singapore that will contribute to our 
> efforts going forward.  We all need legal advice and a lot of more 
> detail before we can make conclusive value judgments on the way 
> forward so I don’t think we gain much by trying to assess which 
> proposals community members like best, but if we can get them to 
> identify any concerns they have about the options on the table, I 
> think that could be useful.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 01, 2015 6:07 PM
> *To:* jrobinson at afilias.info; cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Lise Fuhr
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore
>
> Jonathan, Lise
>
> I am sorry to say that I find this draft report to be slanted to an 
> outrageous degree. Its summary of the public comments and the survey 
> results seem to be distorted in ways that lead the community to a 
> particular view. This report will have to change, and dramatically, 
> before it is fit for public release.
>
> The first point you make in this report, which apparently was drafted 
> by ICANN staff, is “Overall there was very strong support for the 
> current IANA operator (ICANN) and that the IANA functions should not 
> be moved from ICANN, or tendered for, at the onset of the transition.” 
> Taken out of context, this statement makes it seem as if there is 
> little support for separability.
>
> By our count, more than 2/3 of the public comments supported 
> separability of the IANA functions, and separability was one of the 
> key principles adopted by the group at the outset. Moreover, around 
> 63% of the public comments supported the basic idea of the Frankfurt 
> proposal, i.e. to create some kind of external authority to contract 
> for those functions.
>
> Even by Bernard’s method, 13 of the public comments opposed Contract 
> Co. and 18 supported it (a 58% ratio in favor of Contract Co) while 24 
> allegedly made no comment (one of the flaws of Bernard’s method of 
> counting, but that is a minor issue at this point).
>
> The report says that “There was no strong agreement amongst survey 
> respondents with the proposal to create Contract Co.,” which is 
> roughly true, but it doesn’t also say “There was no strong agreement 
> amongst survey respondents, indeed there was strong opposition, to the 
> idea of an internal option.” What accounts for this bias?
>
> The simple fact is that we are currently split between advocates of an 
> internal solution and an external solution. Neither can claim 
> consensus and one-sided references to “a majority” (of 2 votes in a 
> survey that included only 32 people) is not helpful. The key survey 
> questions on the basic issue are all bimodal, with no clear tendency 
> either way. I have no problem with a clear statement to that effect, 
> or even a summary of what arguments people have made supporting or 
> opposing either option. I presume the purpose of this report is to 
> inform the community in Singapore of this fact in an attempt to find 
> proposals that can move the process forward.
>
> A prejudiced report is going to make that more difficult. Furthermore, 
> it is a huge mistake to frame this as a kind of opinion poll at the 
> Singapore meeting as to where people stand now (especially when they 
> are presented with a highly distorted take on how current opinions 
> break down). What we need now now is not polling but deliberation and 
> discussion as to the merits and demerits of various structures, legal 
> advice on the feasibility of both internal and external tracks, and 
> exploration of any options that we haven’t thought of yet.
>
> If you want help modifying the report I’d be happy to provide you with 
> suggestions. Overall, it can be made a lot shorter and a lot simpler.
>
> Milton L Mueller
>
> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
>
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>
> Internet Governance Project
>
> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> 
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan 
> Robinson
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 1, 2015 3:22 PM
> *To:* 'Bernard Turcotte'; cwg-stewardship at icann.org 
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore
>
> All,
>
> To set expectations and remind one another of the purpose of this 
> Discussion Document and of this draft.
>
> The overarching purpose is as described at the outset of the document 
> as follows:
>
> 1.      To inform the community of the work undertaken and progress to 
> date
>
> and
>
> 2.      To seek community input on key and intractable issues in order 
> to assist the CWG in its deliberations
>
> In order to achieve both 1 & 2 above, it is imperative to get the 
> document into circulation within the community as soon as possible.
>
> With the publication of this draft to the CWG, we aim to obtain the 
> following from the you:
>
> A.Input on areas of substantial concern with the document as drafted
>
> and
>
> B.Input as to which questions should be added to the document in order 
> to best direct community input with regard to purpose 2 above.
>
> Accordingly, please can you provide any input as soon as possible and, 
> in any event, by 48 hours from distribution of this document to the 
> CWG i.e. 18h00 UTC on 03 February 2015.
>
> Thank-you.
>
> Jonathan & Lise
>
> Co-chairs
>
> *From:*Bernard Turcotte [mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 01 February 2015 17:41
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore
>
> All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting 
> and the updated timeline.
>
> Questions and comments welcome.
>
> Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be 
> added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work.
>
> Cheers.
>
> B.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150202/00a1d2ab/attachment-0001.html>