<html>
<body>
Given that RFP3 worked exclusively on the Contract Co model and only
recently dcided to work on alternatives, it would be as a possible
replacement of the CC proposal. But I can lve with either
wording.<br><br>
On support, I think that is an accurate statement. At least one
chartering organization has said it would not support the CC model, and
others have been silent. And we made the conscious decision to start, at
great expense of time and effort, the RFP3B group.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 02/02/2015 10:06 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">+ 1 Chuck and echoing many of
Milton's concerns.<br><br>
Some of the wording in the introductory section also gave me pause.
For example: <i>with a section added on an “Internal-to-ICANN” solution
<a href="??.htm">as a replacement f</a>or the “Contract Co. option -
</i>I would have thought this should read "additional/alternative
option" not "a replacement for the ContractCo
option". Another example is where it says
"<i>There is not enough support for the Contract Co. option at this
time to allow the CWG to continue developing only this
option." </i>I don't recall this being a CWG conclusion -
rather members/participants of the CWG proposed adding additional
models/options which was welcomed. We need to be very careful in
the phrasing. <br><br>
Matthew<br><br>
<br>
On 2/2/2015 1:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I agree with Milton that this
document should be as neutral as possible with regard to the various
options and I thought it was close to achieving that. In fact, an
earlier version included the pros and cons of each of the options and I
suggested those be removed so that community members could make their own
judgments without CWG influence. To address Milton’s concern, I am
now more inclined not to include the results of the surveys but rather
just provide links to the results. Besides, we were very clear that
the surveys were not intended to be statistically significant so we
should avoid impressions that we are using the results as if they
were. I think they were very helpful in guiding our review of
public comments within the CWG, but we need to avoid not reading too much
from the results.<br>
<br>
In my opinion, the main objective of the discussion document is to
generate productive feedback in Singapore that will contribute to our
efforts going forward. We all need legal advice and a lot of more
detail before we can make conclusive value judgments on the way forward
so I don’t think we gain much by trying to assess which proposals
community members like best, but if we can get them to identify any
concerns they have about the options on the table, I think that could be
useful.<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Milton
L Mueller<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, February 01, 2015 6:07 PM<br>
<b>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>;
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>;
Lise Fuhr<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for
Singapore<br>
<br>
Jonathan, Lise<br>
<br>
I am sorry to say that I find this draft report to be slanted to an
outrageous degree. Its summary of the public comments and the survey
results seem to be distorted in ways that lead the community to a
particular view. This report will have to change, and dramatically,
before it is fit for public release. <br>
<br>
The first point you make in this report, which apparently was drafted by
ICANN staff, is “Overall there was very strong support for the current
IANA operator (ICANN) and that the IANA functions should not be moved
from ICANN, or tendered for, at the onset of the transition.” Taken out
of context, this statement makes it seem as if there is little support
for separability. <br>
<br>
By our count, more than 2/3 of the public comments supported separability
of the IANA functions, and separability was one of the key principles
adopted by the group at the outset. Moreover, around 63% of the public
comments supported the basic idea of the Frankfurt proposal, i.e. to
create some kind of external authority to contract for those
functions.<br>
<br>
Even by Bernard’s method, 13 of the public comments opposed Contract Co.
and 18 supported it (a 58% ratio in favor of Contract Co) while 24
allegedly made no comment (one of the flaws of Bernard’s method of
counting, but that is a minor issue at this point).<br>
<br>
The report says that “There was no strong agreement amongst survey
respondents with the proposal to create Contract Co.,” which is roughly
true, but it doesn’t also say “There was no strong agreement amongst
survey respondents, indeed there was strong opposition, to the idea of an
internal option.” What accounts for this bias? <br>
<br>
The simple fact is that we are currently split between advocates of an
internal solution and an external solution. Neither can claim consensus
and one-sided references to “a majority” (of 2 votes in a survey that
included only 32 people) is not helpful. The key survey questions on the
basic issue are all bimodal, with no clear tendency either way. I have no
problem with a clear statement to that effect, or even a summary of what
arguments people have made supporting or opposing either option. I
presume the purpose of this report is to inform the community in
Singapore of this fact in an attempt to find proposals that can move the
process forward.<br>
<br>
A prejudiced report is going to make that more difficult. Furthermore, it
is a huge mistake to frame this as a kind of opinion poll at the
Singapore meeting as to where people stand now (especially when they are
presented with a highly distorted take on how current opinions break
down). What we need now now is not polling but deliberation and
discussion as to the merits and demerits of various structures, legal
advice on the feasibility of both internal and external tracks, and
exploration of any options that we haven’t thought of yet. <br>
<br>
If you want help modifying the report I’d be happy to provide you with
suggestions. Overall, it can be made a lot shorter and a lot simpler.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Milton L Mueller<br>
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor<br>
Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>
<a href="http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/">
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/</a><br>
Internet Governance Project<br>
<a href="http://internetgovernance.org/">http://internetgovernance.org</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Jonathan Robinson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, February 1, 2015 3:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Bernard Turcotte';
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for
Singapore<br>
<br>
All,<br>
<br>
To set expectations and remind one another of the purpose of this
Discussion Document and of this draft.<br>
<br>
The overarching purpose is as described at the outset of the document as
follows:<br><br>
1. To inform the community of the work
undertaken and progress to date <br><br>
and<br><br>
2. To seek community input on key and
intractable issues in order to assist the CWG in its deliberations<br>
In order to achieve both 1 & 2 above, it is imperative to get the
document into circulation within the community as soon as possible.<br>
<br>
With the publication of this draft to the CWG, we aim to obtain the
following from the you:<br>
<br>
A. Input on areas of substantial concern with the
document as drafted<br><br>
and<br>
B. Input as to which questions should be added to
the document in order to best direct community input with regard to
purpose 2 above.<br>
<br>
Accordingly, please can you provide any input as soon as possible and, in
any event, by 48 hours from distribution of this document to the CWG i.e.
18h00 UTC on 03 February 2015.<br>
<br>
Thank-you.<br>
<br>
<br>
Jonathan & Lise<br>
Co-chairs<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Bernard Turcotte
[<a href="mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com">
mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> 01 February 2015 17:41<br>
<b>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore<br>
<br>
All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and
the updated timeline.<br>
<br>
Questions and comments welcome.<br>
<br>
Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added
to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work.<br>
<br>
Cheers.<br>
<br>
B.<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre></blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>