[CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

[James Gannon]

+1 I think a second look at the neutrality of the phrasing needs to be considered, the CWG is not ruling any option in or out at this point and the statement needs to reflect that and no show any bias in either direction until that route has been decided by the consensus of the CWG.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 3:06 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Milton L Mueller; jrobinson at afilias.info; cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Lise Fuhr
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

+ 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[CS1] 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.
________________________________

 [CS1]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150202/a42eb0c1/attachment.html>