<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I agree about the neutrality of the document. I think a few minor
wording changes should be able to fix the various interpretaions of
bias. Words are like that, some words that seem fine to some of us,
may appear biased to others - there is a cultural aspect to that as
well.<br>
<br>
As for the Annex, the problem I have is that we are acting like an
informal survey has statistical validity. I have no problm with the
info being included for report completeness as they were significant
milestones in our labors, but there needs to be a major disclaimer
about them being non scientific and signifying nothing more that
having been a conveneint work tool for giving the conversation
shape. And there needs to be references to the full data set for
those who want to dig further.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02-Feb-15 17:05, Martin Boyle wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE819AA4D3@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>As Chuck, I thought the document
reasonably neutral.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>While I’m not wedded to the annexes,
they do help show where there was – and where there was not
– some semblance of consensus. This is a useful reminder to
us all as a “how did we get to where we are,” not least
because it helps us to focus on understanding, and
responding to, concerns: this is a vital step if we are to
build a consensus proposal.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Obviously there should be a reference
to the complete survey, but pointing to the complete surveys
is hardly helpful to people who have not really been
following the detail. Bearing in mind that we are hoping to
use the document to improve awareness and to stimulate
discussion, highlighting some of the issues we have been
wrestling with since Christmas could be quite a useful
approach.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I’d agree with Chuck’s final
paragraph: if we can come away understanding the hopes and
fears elicited by each of the approaches, this will be
useful – or even being optimistic, could mark a good step
forward.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Martin</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
lang="EN-US"> <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>Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 02 February 2015 13:56<br>
<b>To:</b> Milton L Mueller; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>; lisefuhrforwader<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report
for Singapore</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Chuck</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
lang="EN-US">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Jonathan, Lise</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The first point you make
in this report, which apparently was drafted by ICANN staff,
is “</span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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?
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Milton L Mueller</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Laura J. and L. Douglas
Meredith Professor</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Syracuse University
School of Information Studies</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/"><span>http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Internet Governance
Project</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://internetgovernance.org/"><span>http://internetgovernance.org</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
lang="EN-US">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft
Report for Singapore</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>All,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>To set expectations and remind one
another of the purpose of this Discussion Document and of
this draft.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The overarching purpose is as
described at the outset of the document as follows:</span></p>
<p class="CWGbody"><span lang="EN-CA">1. To inform the
community of the work undertaken and progress to date
</span></p>
<p class="CWGbody"><span lang="EN-CA">and</span></p>
<p class="CWGbody"><span lang="EN-CA">2. To seek
community input on key and intractable issues in order to
assist the CWG in its deliberations</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In order to achieve both 1 & 2
above, it is imperative to get the document into
circulation within the community as soon as possible.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>With the publication of this draft
to the CWG, we aim to obtain the following from the you:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span>A.</span><span>
</span><span>Input on areas of substantial concern with the
document as drafted<br>
<br>
and</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span>B.</span><span>
</span><span>Input as to which questions should be added to
the document in order to best direct community input with
regard to purpose 2 above.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thank-you.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Jonathan & Lise</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Co-chairs</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
lang="EN-US"> Bernard Turcotte [</span><span lang="EN-US"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com"><span>mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com</span></a></span><span
lang="EN-US">]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 01 February 2015 17:41<br>
<b>To:</b> </span><span lang="EN-US"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"><span>cwg-stewardship@icann.org</span></a></span><span
lang="EN-US"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for
Singapore</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">All, please find attached the draft
report for the Singapore meeting and the updated
timeline.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Questions and comments welcome.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jonathan and Lise would also like
input on questions which could be added to this document
which would provide useful feedback for our work.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">B.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>