[CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill

Thu Aug 6 08:24:55 UTC 2015

Alissa,

Thank-you for this. We value the response from the ICG and the CWG co-chairs
will likely draft our own response to Richard Hill shortly.

We intend to cover this on our scheduled CWG call today.

Best wishes,

Jonathan & Lise

From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
Sent: 05 August 2015 18:57
To: jrobinson at afilias.info
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson
<jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
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> mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39
To:  <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA <
<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> 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>
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-1May
15-final.pdf>
https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Community-Comments-Handling-1May1
5-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/20150806/2273bb3d/attachment.html>