[CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill

[Gomes, Chuck]

Not surprisingly, Alissa's comments are quite similar to the responses that have been drafted for CWG consideration.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 1:57 PM
To: jrobinson at afilias.info
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill

Hi Jonathan,

Regarding Richard's claim about the final proposal not having gone out for public comment, in our view what he suggests could yield a process that never ends, given that further comments can always be provided whenever a document is put out for public comment. Thus requiring a "final" document to be put out for public comment is an unreasonable requirement for a process intended to terminate. Furthermore, there is a public comment period on the combined proposal of the three operational communities. If the final CWG proposal deviated substantially from what the global multistakeholder community wants, that fact should be revealed.

Regarding his claim about the global multistakeholder community, our understanding of the CWG's charter is that the group is open to any interested participant. The process was based in ICANN through the chartering organisations and that is hardly surprising given the role of ICANN (and indeed the invitation from NTIA).  However, the process was open to anyone, and was based around developing consensus - no votes and no sustained opposition on compromises that allowed the CWG to move forward.

Regarding his claim about his specific comments on the proposal, we note that the CWG proposal states on p. 51 that "The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration." We note that rationales were given and CWG consensus positions explained for each comment received during the public comment period that was not included in the proposal (including Richard's). It is our understanding that all of the comments were discussed and that some of them, including the comments about jurisdiction, were identified as items that could be addressed in future work.

Best,
Alissa on behalf of the ICG

On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:54 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>> wrote:


Alissa,

Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG.

Jonathan

From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> IANA <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill

CWG,
The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html> According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Community-Comments-Handling-1May15-final.pdf>, the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10.

The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG.

Thanks,
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150805/b766aa72/attachment.html>