[CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Feb 2 16:50:19 UTC 2015 

Given that RFP3 worked exclusively on the Contract Co model and only 
recently dcided to work on alternatives, it would be as a possible 
replacement of the CC proposal. But I can lve with either wording.

On support, I think that is an accurate statement. At least one 
chartering organization has said it would not support the CC model, 
and others have been silent. And we made the conscious decision to 
start, at great expense of time and effort, the RFP3B group.

Alan

At 02/02/2015 10:06 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>+ 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 for 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: 
>><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>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: <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>jrobinson at afilias.info; 
>><mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>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/>http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>>Internet Governance Project
>><http://internetgovernance.org/>http://internetgovernance.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: 
>><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>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'; 
>><mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>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>mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com]
>>Sent: 01 February 2015 17:41
>>To: <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>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
>><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20150202/69165713/attachment.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list