[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment)

Sat Jan 31 14:18:06 UTC 2015

I believe we will come to a point where a consensus call will be needed but that is a long way off and it should not be viewed as a vote if it is handled the way they are normally handled in the GNSO.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:29 AM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment)

I would have concerns about the use of a vote, it would not align with both the CWG charter or the ICG requirements, if we find ourself at an impasse I believe that the required course of action is to stay within the requirements of the charter and submit both proposals (Internal and External):

>>In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report.

The charter gives us guidance on the final report if we find that we have no option under consensus:

>>In the event one or more of the chartering organizations do(es) not support (parts of) the Final Proposal, the Final Proposal should clearly indicate which parts are fully supported and which parts that are not, and which chartering organization dissents from the CWG view.
In the event that no consensus is reached by the CWG, the Final Report will document the process that was followed and will be submitted to the chartering organizations to request possible suggestions for mitigating the issues that are preventing consensus. If consensus can still not be reached, the Final Report will document the processes followed, including requesting suggestions for mitigating the issues that are preventing consensus from the chartering organizations and will be submitted to ICG for their suggestions for mitigating the issues that are preventing consensus. If consensus can still not be reached, request for closing the CWG should be made to the chartering organizations.

On 30 Jan 2015, at 14:00, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:

Hi,

I wonder with the fairly balanced and stable  impasse we seem to have between internal and external models , how are we going to reach consensus.

In some ways as we move toward a center point, the proposals become more or  less similar except for the dividing line of internal or external.   What sort of judgement will be required to decide which side of the line our solution will falls?

At what point will we decide a vote is required?  I do not personally favor a vote, but I also do not see great movement from one type of solution to the other.  At some point we will need to decide either way.

With the exception of a possible hybrid proposal that somehow manages to satisfy the urges of the inside model people and the outside model people,  I do not see how we resolve this outside of a vote.  Unfortunately  I do not see such a proposal as being allowed by either side of this issue.

Perhaps we should wait for the legal advice, but I am not sure why as both sides include many of the same legal elements. But I think we should ready ourselves for that vote.

avri
On 30-Jan-15 08:37, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

Dear Alissa, ICG Vice Chairs & Colleages,

Thank-you for this note. We are pleased to be able to now respond in some

more detail.

Following our collective recognition that the CWG would not be able to

respond with a proposal in time to meet the original planned submission of

31 January 2015, we have continued to work hard at making progress. This has

involved many areas of concurrent work including re-evaluating the work

required to complete a proposal and seeking to clearly understand the key

dependencies. In this regard, we would like to draw your attention to a

three key points:

1. The number and diversity of participants in the CWG's work necessarily

mean that it is time-consuming and complex to take account of these inputs.

2. The number of dependencies which impact the timeline of the CWG's work,

not all of which can be effectively or completely managed by ourselves.

3. The inter-relationship with the work of the CCWG on Accountability and

the necessary inter-dependence of the work of the CWG and the CCWG.

Recognising the above, we have constructed a timeline which seeks to provide

a Best Case for the production of a proposal from the CWG. This Best Case

seeks to predict the path to production of a final proposal which can be

signed off by the chartering organisations and moreover, is correlated with

the work of the CCWG on Accountability. This Best Case is includes key areas

of work (separated into specific work streams), the use of high intensity

periods of work and the potential use of an in person / face-to-face meeting

of the CWG. It also highlights where there are key risks to the timetable

and the consequent target date. These risks are represented by triangles on

the diagram. They include but are not limited to:

A. Lack of consensus within the CWG around a specific proposal

B. Issues around the duration to acquire legal advice or the specific

content of any such advice

B. The willingness or ability of the chartering organisations to support the

outcome of the work of the CWG

Rest assured, we have every intention of producing a proposal, which has the

support of the CWG members and the chartering organisations, in a timely

fashion and will make best efforts to do so. However, we feel strongly that

we need to set expectations about the current timetable and the implicit

target it contains in that it contains identified risks and therefore may

not be achievable.

We trust that this is an effective update and are committed to continuing to

work towards a well-supported proposal as well as to keeping you informed of

and engaged in our progress to that end.

Thank-you for your active involvement and appreciation of our task.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr

Attachment: An representation of the Best Case timetable of work for the CWG

correlated with our current understanding of the work of the CWG and with

the current timetable of the ICG

-----Original Message-----

From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]

Sent: 16 January 2015 23:16

To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>

Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Request from ICG

Dear CWG,

The ICG has been following the developments in all of the operational

communities, including the naming community. We have noted some discussions

about the possibility that the CWG might require additional time to complete

its response to the ICG RFP beyond its original planned submission date of

30 January 2015. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the

CWG's estimated revised completion date, taking into account appropriate

time for community consultation. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon

as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for

you to indicate what you expect the CWG's major challenges to be to complete

your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of

assistance.

We appreciate the CWG's continued diligence in working towards target

completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the

group's progress until its work is complete.

Thanks,

Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20150131/a82b6d38/attachment.html>