[CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft

[Martin Boyle]

Thanks Avri,

I'm not sure I really understand what ICANN accountability would mean in this footnote.  Surely the important thing would be to define the rules for the various structures we put in place to avoid unintended consequences of one or more stakeholders being able to control outcomes?  And then the rules might be different depending on the nature of the committee/group/process/whatever.  Does that make sense?

I do note that my e-mail last night (I blame it on the late hour) I put 5.iv as a "second reading" (ie for clearing previously agreed text).  Of course this is relatively new text and so should be done as a separate point - perhaps along with 5.iii where there is a proposal for a change.  Sorry for this.

Best

Martin

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 05 March 2015 07:11
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft

Hi,

 One small comment:

p1


would be required to achieve consensus.

Since consensus is such a loose term, might be good to specify 'ICANN Consensus', which is process dependent and is not full consensus, as opposed to just consensus.

thanks

avri
On 04-Mar-15 23:58, Martin Boyle wrote:
Hi all,

And special thanks to Elise and Paul for their cooperation on g.ii (now 7.ii), Stephanie for some useful proposed wording for j (now 10), Maarten Simon for some comments and suggested edits and Erick for some interesting discussion on h.ii (now 8.ii).

The result is perhaps a slightly more complicated document that it was on Tuesday evening!

I propose that we look to:


*         Remove all the comments and accept all the editing that has not had any comment that is the side heading and paragraphs (using the new numbering) 2, 3, 5.i, 5.iv, 6.ii, 7 chapeau, 7.iii-vi, 8.i, 8.iii and 9.

*         See whether the suggested compromise on 7.ii is acceptable.

*         See whether the proposed text in 5.iii is acceptable.

*         In the light of Maarten's comment on 5.vi, check whether maintaining the current text (including removing the square brackets) is acceptable.

*         See whether 6.iii should be retained and whether there is consensus to remove the square brackets.

*         See if the edits proposed for 7.i are acceptable.

*         See if Stephanie's proposal for 10 is acceptable.

If we have time I'd like to at least ask Erick to introduce the alternative he has proposed for 8.ii.  However, it is not proving to be an easy discussion so I propose to take this discussion off line as there is unlikely to be any resolution in time for or during tomorrow's call.

Thanks and I look forward to a constructive discussion tomorrow.


Martin







_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


________________________________
[http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/>


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150305/19efb11b/attachment-0001.html>