[CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
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>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list