[CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting
Jonathan Robinson
jrobinson at afilias.info
Wed Feb 18 09:38:41 UTC 2015
All,
Picking up on this thread, Lise and I discussed this when we talked this
morning. There are some good points made in the thread and we'd like to
recognise these.
In particular, we agree that there's an issue with the target audience and
therefore the focus and effectiveness of the communication. Emerging from
ICANN 52, we felt it was important to communicate immediately at the end of
the meeting and to capture some of the key points at the time. We were
targeting the message at both the CWG participants and the broader
community. However, it seems that a combination of working at speed and with
the two audiences in mind, we didn't score right on target with either
audience.
>From the broader community perspective, some of the feedback we received at
ICANN 52 included questioning the overall effectiveness and productivity of
the group. Therefore the motivation in summarising work to date was, at
least in part, to underline and so emphasize the effort made by the CWG so
far. However, we also recognise that there remains plenty of work to be done
in moving towards a final proposal and being seen to be moving effectively
towards that end. Hence the focus on working methods and process (CWG
meeting on Wednesday in Singapore) AND on taking feedback on the substance
(Q&A session on Thursday in Singapore).
In any event, we are committed to working with the group including;
confronting the difficult issues, looking for compromise where necessary and
then producing a timely proposal. Of course, we need the group's commitment
to the same.
>From a practical perspective, we do need to process and integrate the input
from the meeting, consolidate our working method and plans going forward and
diarise key dates for the CWG. We will work with staff and the CWG to do all
this as soon as possible. The points in the thread about highlighting areas
of agreement as well as disagreement and the defining the next steps and
timeline are consistent with this approach.
Please note:
The next <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings>
CWG-Stewardship working meeting is scheduled for 19 February from
11:00-13:00 UTC.
There are plans for another face to face meeting on 25 - 27 March 2015.
Thank-you
Lise & Jonathan
From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo at auda.org.au]
Sent: 16 February 2015 08:40
To: Kieren McCarthy
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary
of ICANN 52 Meeting
Without clear and straightforward communication, the end result will be
deals done at the last minute by a select few, which will then cause
resentment and frustration in all those that have invested a lot of time and
trouble in the process but weren't one of final arbiters. (ICANN's biggest
problem writ large.)
Can I please encourage people to be open and fair. And show leadership
rather than pump out policy pap dressed up as diplomacy.
Perhaps a slightly less dyed-in-the wool attitude to what ICANN 'will do'
and what the Board 'will do' might also go some way to helping.
Cheers,
Chris
On 14 Feb 2015, at 11:02 , Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:
I'll joyfully flag up that I am in agreement with you on this one, Milton.
Not necessarily on who the audience should be, but on the sort of content
that needs to be included.
If the chairs don't feel able to state clearly what the issues are, or
highlight specific aspects of agreement/disagreement in non-coded language,
but instead resort to largely meaningless updates to people who are already
following things anyway, it does not bode well for real progress.
Without clear and straightforward communication, the end result will be
deals done at the last minute by a select few, which will then cause
resentment and frustration in all those that have invested a lot of time and
trouble in the process but weren't one of final arbiters. (ICANN's biggest
problem writ large.)
Can I please encourage people to be open and fair. And show leadership
rather than pump out policy pap dressed up as diplomacy.
Kieren
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
In response to Kieren, I think it is common-sensical, not critical, to ask
who the audience of this statement is.
I actually believe that the primary audience is CWG members and participants
themselves, with the secondary audience being the people within the broader
community who want to know what kind of progress we are making. CWG members
& participants need a sharper sense of where we are post Singapore and what
we plan to do in the near term.
To my mind the statement fails to reflect certain key facts about the
current situation:
. The group is still divided over 'internal' and 'external' solutions
. The Wednesday 'working' session in Singapore did nothing to advance
or even to engage debate on that issue, but the Thursday session did start
to clarify some issue by listening to feedback on some (not all) of the 9
questions posed to the community
. The statement does not make it clear what process will be used to
obtain additional feedback on the 9 questions, or what the timeline for that
is
. Progress is limited by our need for legal advice, which may rule
out or raise further questions about some of the models.
. The report _must_ tell us what is the status of the request for
legal advice and provide an expected timeline for it.
. The statement should reflect Board chair Crocker's statement that
NTIA and ICANN expect us to incorporate CCWG WS1 recommendations into our
proposal, which makes our timeline critically dependent on CCWG's.
My two cents
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:57 AM
To: GomesChuck
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary
of ICANN 52 Meeting
Respectively, if I could add a critical voice.
This long update is all about process and contains very little real
information.
Who is the audience? It reads as though the audIence is the people on this
list congratulating ourselves for all the work we've done.
If the intended audience is people not in this list then can I suggest the
update be:
* Much shorter
* Focused on actual details rather than listing meetings
* Highlight areas of progress and agreement
* Highlight areas of disagreement
* list next steps with timeline
Cheers
Kieren
-
[sent through phone]
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
I would not include the Work to Date and Composition sections and instead
provide links. Overall it looks very good to me.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY SR 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
Date:02/12/2015 6:56 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Cc:
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of
ICANN 52 Meeting
To view the original announcement, please see
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en
The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions held two
sessions at the ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore (8-12 February 2015): a
two-hour <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-cwg-stewardship>
working session on Wednesday, and a questions and answers session
<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-cwg-stewardship> on Thursday.
In addition to these sessions, there was participation in sessions hosted by
many other groups across the ICANNcommunity, as well as many rewarding
conversations and engagements throughout the week on behalf of the
co-Chairs, the members and their chartering organizations, the individual
participants of the CWG-Stewardship, and the broader multistakeholder
community. <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en#foot1> 1
Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting
The Wednesday working session focused primarily on reviewing and refining
the CWG-Stewardship's working methods. These revisions dedicate the group to
working in a committee of the whole moving forward, meeting at minimum once
per week and, and building out the converging areas of the Proposal towards
developing a final Proposal. As needed, the CWG-Stewardship will funnel
specific subjects through expertise-based Task Forces. Task Forces will
serve the purpose of developing specific aspects of the Proposal as well as
demonstrating incremental progress. Drafts from Task Forces will be brought
to the group for review and decision making on inclusion within the draft
proposal.
The Thursday questions and answers session was focused on receiving
community feedback. In preparation for the ICANN 52 Meeting, the
CWG-Stewardship created a
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDisc
ussionDocument-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1422998880000&api=v2>
Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] that attempted to capture and summarize
the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage
community input on key and intractable issues that were addressed in detail
on Thursday.
The CWG-Stewardship appreciates the high-quality comments and responses
received, and expects to devote time in its next meeting on 19 February 2015
to further assess the feedback received. The group remains open to feedback
on the specific questions on the Discussion Document, and requests that
feedback before the 19 February meeting. Feedback can be provided through a
CWG-Stewardship member or participant, or to the support staff (
<mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org> grace.abuhamad at icann.org) for transmission
to the group.
Looking Ahead
The ICANN 52 meeting maintained much needed focus on the work related to the
IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANNAccountability. Throughout
the meeting the co-Chairs, the members and their chartering organizations,
the individual participants of the CWG-Stewardship, and the broader
community all dedicated their time to constructive feedback and progress.
With the sustained support of the community, the CWG-Stewardship commits to
continuing to work at a high-intensity and pace. The group will remain
regularly engaged with the community and any interested observers in order
to provide updates on its work as well as related elements such as receipt
of legal advice, as it did during the
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232656> Webinars
on 3 February.
Coordination with CCWG-Accountability
As agreed to in their
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232471> Joint
Statementon 28 January 2015, the Chairs of both the CWG-Stewardship and the
CCWG-Accountability committed to attending and participating in each other's
sessions at ICANN 52. The CWG-Stewardship recognizes that, wherever possible
and appropriate, the group will take advantage of the efforts of the
CCWG-Accountability to avoid duplication or overlaps in the work to be done.
With this robust coordination, the co-Chairs are assured of the effective
progress of the CWG-Stewardship.
Work to Date
The CWG-Stewardship began its work in October 2014, with regular weekly
virtual meetings and a <https://community.icann.org/x/8CLxAg> working
meeting at ICANN 51 in Los Angeles, California. In addition to
ICANNsupported regular weekly CWG-Stewardship virtual meetings, and at the
request of the Chairs, ICANNagreed to support a two-full-day
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-20-en> face-to-face
meeting in Frankfurt, Germanyon 19-20 November 2014 to advance the work of
the group.
On 1 December, the CWG-Stewardship published its draft proposal for a 21-day
public comment period. Following the
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823498/CWG-Dec01PublicCo
nsultFINAL.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1417638162000&api=v2> publication
of the draft proposal [PDF, 1.7 MB], between 4 - 6 December, the CWG hosted
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823496> three
public webinars to present the draft proposal and engage with the broader
community.
At the conclusion of the public comment, the CWG-Stewardship dedicated its
time to full review and analysis of the feedback received, in particular
during an
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232482>
intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. As part of the outcome, the group
began to study a series of alternative models that had not yet been fully
considered. These models were presented in
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232656> two
public webinars on 3 February and in a
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDisc
ussionDocument-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1422998880000&api=v2>
Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] that was released for discussion at ICANN
52 in Singapore.
The next <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings>
CWG-Stewardship working meeting is scheduled for 19 February from
11:00-13:00 UTC.
There are plans for another face to face meeting on 25 - 27 March 2015.
Composition
The CWG consists 138 people, organized as 19 members, appointed by and
accountable to chartering organizations, and 119 participants, who
participate as individuals. The CWG is an open group: anyone interested in
the work of the CWG, can join as a participant. Participants may be from a
chartering organization, from a stakeholder group or organization not
represented in the CWG or currently active within ICANN, or self-appointed.
Of the 138 CWG members and participants, the regional representation is as
follows:
. 47 Asia/Asia Pacific
. 36 Europe
. 31 North America
. 12 Latin America
. 12 Africa
Of the 138 CWG members and participants, the stakeholder group
representation is as follows:
. 47 (no affiliation)
. 32 GNSO
. 20 GAC
. 18 ccNSO/ccTLD
. 18 At-Large
. 2 SSAC
. 1 ASO
Also, there are 6 ICG members who participate in the CWG.
_____
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en#note1> 1 For a
full list of sessions relevant to the IANA Stewardship Transition, please
see
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN
A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> here.
_______________________________________________
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/20150218/57530362/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list