<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
Well long way off is a relative term. I think that we need to get
some of the fundamental questions settled real soon now. and unless
we all start to gravitate to a hybrid/middle position like Poole's
model real soon, developing each of two models to greater degrees of
specificity may harden positions at the edges. In some sense the
longer we wait to determine some things, the harder they become to
decide on. We will _never_ have all the information we might want.
So lets get the legal advise and start making up our minds.<br>
<br>
Chuck, as for whether a poll or consensus call of members is at all
like a vote, lets talk that out that over a drink some day. We have
almost been having this discussion for years now. But certainly,
it is called a consensus call in this environment, and I used the
wrong word.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31-Jan-15 09:18, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E494EF298@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Chuck</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>James Gannon<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 30, 2015 9:29 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Avri Doria<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Timetable -
Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment)</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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): </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">>>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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The charter gives us guidance on the
final report if we find that we have no option under
consensus:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">>>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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 30 Jan 2015, at 14:00, Avri Doria
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
avri</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 30-Jan-15 08:37, Jonathan
Robinson wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<pre>Dear Alissa, ICG Vice Chairs & Colleages,</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Thank-you for this note. We are pleased to be able to now respond in some</pre>
<pre>more detail.</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Following our collective recognition that the CWG would not be able to</pre>
<pre>respond with a proposal in time to meet the original planned submission of</pre>
<pre>31 January 2015, we have continued to work hard at making progress. This has</pre>
<pre>involved many areas of concurrent work including re-evaluating the work</pre>
<pre>required to complete a proposal and seeking to clearly understand the key</pre>
<pre>dependencies. In this regard, we would like to draw your attention to a</pre>
<pre>three key points:</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>1. The number and diversity of participants in the CWG's work necessarily</pre>
<pre>mean that it is time-consuming and complex to take account of these inputs.</pre>
<pre>2. The number of dependencies which impact the timeline of the CWG's work,</pre>
<pre>not all of which can be effectively or completely managed by ourselves.</pre>
<pre>3. The inter-relationship with the work of the CCWG on Accountability and</pre>
<pre>the necessary inter-dependence of the work of the CWG and the CCWG.</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Recognising the above, we have constructed a timeline which seeks to provide</pre>
<pre>a Best Case for the production of a proposal from the CWG. This Best Case</pre>
<pre>seeks to predict the path to production of a final proposal which can be</pre>
<pre>signed off by the chartering organisations and moreover, is correlated with</pre>
<pre>the work of the CCWG on Accountability. This Best Case is includes key areas</pre>
<pre>of work (separated into specific work streams), the use of high intensity</pre>
<pre>periods of work and the potential use of an in person / face-to-face meeting</pre>
<pre>of the CWG. It also highlights where there are key risks to the timetable</pre>
<pre>and the consequent target date. These risks are represented by triangles on</pre>
<pre>the diagram. They include but are not limited to:</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>A. Lack of consensus within the CWG around a specific proposal</pre>
<pre>B. Issues around the duration to acquire legal advice or the specific</pre>
<pre>content of any such advice</pre>
<pre>B. The willingness or ability of the chartering organisations to support the</pre>
<pre>outcome of the work of the CWG</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Rest assured, we have every intention of producing a proposal, which has the</pre>
<pre>support of the CWG members and the chartering organisations, in a timely</pre>
<pre>fashion and will make best efforts to do so. However, we feel strongly that</pre>
<pre>we need to set expectations about the current timetable and the implicit</pre>
<pre>target it contains in that it contains identified risks and therefore may</pre>
<pre>not be achievable. </pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>We trust that this is an effective update and are committed to continuing to</pre>
<pre>work towards a well-supported proposal as well as to keeping you informed of</pre>
<pre>and engaged in our progress to that end.</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Thank-you for your active involvement and appreciation of our task.</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Sincerely,</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Attachment: An representation of the Best Case timetable of work for the CWG</pre>
<pre>correlated with our current understanding of the work of the CWG and with</pre>
<pre>the current timetable of the ICG</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>-----Original Message-----</pre>
<pre>From: Alissa Cooper [<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">mailto:alissa@cooperw.in</a>] </pre>
<pre>Sent: 16 January 2015 23:16</pre>
<pre>To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a></pre>
<pre>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Request from ICG</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Dear CWG,</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>The ICG has been following the developments in all of the operational</pre>
<pre>communities, including the naming community. We have noted some discussions</pre>
<pre>about the possibility that the CWG might require additional time to complete</pre>
<pre>its response to the ICG RFP beyond its original planned submission date of</pre>
<pre>30 January 2015. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the</pre>
<pre>CWG's estimated revised completion date, taking into account appropriate</pre>
<pre>time for community consultation. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon</pre>
<pre>as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for</pre>
<pre>you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete</pre>
<pre>your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of</pre>
<pre>assistance. </pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target</pre>
<pre>completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the</pre>
<pre>group’s progress until its work is complete.</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Thanks,</pre>
<pre>Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG</pre>
<pre>_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre>CWG-Stewardship mailing list</pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<pre>_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre>CWG-Stewardship mailing list</pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>