[CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal and an alternative option

[Eduardo Diaz]

I agree with Chuck's statement. Let's see what we get from the public and
refine/change as needed.

-ed

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> Malcolm,
>
> A consensus call was not made as far as I am aware, nor do I think that we
> are ready for one.  There is really too much work still to be done to do a
> consensus call; in my opinion, it would be very difficult for most groups
> to make a clear decision in terms of support until more details are worked
> and questions answered.  But I do think it is a good time to get public
> input so we can find out whether the high level proposal on the table now
> is going in a direction that is constructive; that will help us refine it
> or if need be change direction where needed.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:21 AM
> To: Phil Corwin; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal and an
> alternative option
>
>
> On 29/11/2014 17:03, Phil Corwin wrote:
> > I salute the entire group, especially those who gathered in Frankfurt,
> > for achieving the development of a remarkably detailed first draft for
> > public comment in a very brief time - and yet, surveying this
> > dialogue, I have to ask, is there a broad  consensus within the CWG
> > for what is about to be posted on Monday? Because if there is not then
> > the time should be taken to develop that full consensus, rather than
> > put out for public comment something which seems to be generating the
> > characteristics of drafter's remorse.
>
> This question is now extremely urgent.
>
> Do the organisers consider there is a consensus? To my mind that's a clear
> "No", but it's not for me to call it.
>
> If not, do they still planning to go ahead and solicit community consensus
> for a document that doesn't even command consensus amongst the committee
> that prepared it?
>
> If it's not being published tomorrow as the CWG's draft proposal, are we
> setting a new target date to have a consensus on the CWG?
>
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London
> Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>            21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>



-- 
*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141201/c9a6c794/attachment.html>