[CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting
Kieren McCarthy
kierenmccarthy at gmail.com
Wed Feb 18 12:35:01 UTC 2015
Thanks for this note and for listening and reacting accordingly.
Kieren
-
[sent through phone]
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
wrote:
> 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/a1e8eb67/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list