[CWG-Stewardship] Charter interpretation

Tue Jun 23 18:43:32 UTC 2015

Gracias Jonathan!

Regards

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
wrote:

> Seun,
>
> I sense time is of the essence. Please see my rapidly compiled responses
> below.
>
> Jonathan
>
> --
>
> - If there are comments/suggestions from any of the chartering
> organisations that requires update of the proposal they would NOT be added
> into the current CWG proposal?
>
> Correct. No changes to the current proposal are envisaged
>
> - The comments/updates could/will be considered after submitting the
> current proposal and an Addendum to the proposal can be sent to ICG?
>
> No updates or addendums to the proposal are envisaged save for in response
> to the ICG in its work to reconcile the 3 responses to its RFP.
>
> - If one(or more) chartering organisation refuse/makes a conditionally
> acceptance, the current proposal will still be forwarded to the ICG in its
> current form?
>
> The proposal itself has significant conditionality in built already.
>
> My personal view is to encourage all groups to rely on the conditionality
> built into the proposal i.e. that which resulted from the significant work
> of this group and to support submission to the ICG.
>
> N.B. No one group that worked on the proposal has got all that they
> wanted. It is the process of significant effort and compromise. The
> chartering organisations should ask themselves this question and if they
> are satisfied that it represents a fair consensus based on due process and
> associated compromise, they should vote to support without conditions.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 23 June 2015 14:47
> *To:* Jonathan Robinson
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Charter interpretation
>
>
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> Thank you for confirming this, i had similar thinking as well but after
> consulting the charter it seemed confusing hence my questions. So just to
> be extra clear, could you confirm the 3 question below with a yes/no
> response so one can provide informed response to any member of the
> community asking:
>
> - If there are comments/suggestions from any of the chartering
> organisations that requires update of the proposal they would NOT be added
> into the current CWG proposal?
>
> - The comments/updates could/will be considered after submitting the
> current proposal and an Addendum to the proposal can be sent to ICG?
>
> - If one(or more) chartering organisation refuse/makes a conditionally
> acceptance, the current proposal will still be forwarded to the ICG in its
> current form?
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> wrote:
>
> Seun,
>
>
>
> The current proposal before the chartering organisations is the Final
> Transition Proposal i.e. it is not a draft.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 23 June 2015 12:55
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Charter interpretation
>
>
>
> Dear Co-Chairs, all
>
> Re-reading the CWG charter, I like to get some clarification/correction on
> my interpretation of the CWG charter. Sections below:
>
> *Final Transition Proposal *
>
> After receiving the notifications from all chartering organizations as
> described above, the co-chairs of the WG shall, within ten working days
> after receiving the last notification, submit the Final Transition Proposal
> to the Chairs of all the chartering organizations..............In the event
> one or more of the chartering organizations do(es) not support (parts of)
> the Final Proposal, the Final Proposal should clearly indicate which parts
> are fully supported and which parts that are not, and which chartering
> organization dissents from the CWG view.
> In the event that no consensus is reached by the CWG, the Final Report will document the process that was
> followed and will be submitted to the chartering
> organizations to request possible suggestions for mitigating the issues
> that are preventing consensus......
>
>
>
> Based on the section above, i like to get response/confirmation on the
> following assumption:
>
> - That the current proposal is final "draft" of the CWG
>
> - That the CWG would reconvene to update the curent draft based on
> response from the chartering organisation.
>
> - That another consensus call will still be made by the CWG to produce a
> final proposal to be submited
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      *
> *http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>**Mobile:
> +2348035233535 <%2B2348035233535>*
> *alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      *
> *http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>**Mobile:
> +2348035233535 <%2B2348035233535>*
> *alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150623/74226387/attachment.html>