[CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52

[John Poole]

Dear Grace *et al:*

I do not know if it is too late to change, but whenever a "discussion
document" or any document is prepared for general distribution, (especially
for readers not familiar with its content) never, never, separate a heading
from the content immediately following. Look at the bottom of page 8, top
of page 9. Word processing software can prevent this from happening (in
Word it is called widow and orphan control
<http://word.tips.net/T001149_Controlling_Widows_and_Orphans.html> ). At
bottom of page 8, you have an "orphan" -- "Summary of the External Trust
Model." The content for this heading is on page 9 with no reference as to
what it is referring. Typesetters understood, long before the age of
computers, to avoid "widows and orphans" so readers would not be confused
and were aided in their comprehension.

In addition, I am not sure what "end result" is hoped for in Singapore for
the "Discussion Document"-- it may be a way to give ICANN52 attendees a
very general overview, it is NOT good for discussion leading to decisions.
What is the purpose of the discussion? To inform attendees of ICANN 52 of
the status and enable them to ask relevant questions? Or to start lobbying
attendees to make up their mind in favor of a particular option, with the
hope to harden positions of ICANN stakeholders groups? From just what I
have read on this and other mail lists, I fear it is the latter. In fact, I
have found in answering some individual emails from CWG-Stewardship
participants, they have no understanding at all of the External Trust
Model, may not have been at the Jan 30th meeting where it was discussed:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232278 , or have
"already made up their mind."

As you know, I will not be in Singapore. Greg Shatan has the best
understanding of the External Trust Model of anyone who will be in
Singapore. To give but one example of how the "Discussion Document for
ICANN 52" is NOT a "Decision Document" is the reference to U.S. law at the
top of page 9. I know, and Greg knows, this is NOT a reference to U.S.
Federal Law, but to the Common Law for Trusts followed by many nations
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law> as well as 49 of the 50 States of
the USA, as it may have been modified in each jurisdiction. In the US, Trusts
are formed under state law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law>, NOT
federal law. This is because, unlike most nations, the US federal
government (itself divided into 3 branches) has only the limited powers
granted it by the US Constitution. Greg knows all this, but most, if not
all readers in Singapore of the "Discussion Draft" do not know this.
Perhaps someone should inform the ICANN52 attendees of this since,
apparently, there are now formal Discussion and Question&Answer sessions
planned for ICANN 52. Ignorance and dysfunction have a way of multiplying,
even when one has "good intentions."

I wish all those attending ICANN 52 the best, including safe travels.
Please remember, when you are in Singapore, the words of Larry Strickling
just a few days ago: "... the community should proceed as if it has only
one chance to get this right... In response to the December 1 draft, other
suggestions have emerged.  Are all the options and proposals being
adequately considered in a manner that is fair and transparent?..."

Best regards,
John Poole
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150206/c4da8e5b/attachment.html>