Dear All,
Based on the comments and feedback received so far, I've taken the last
version of the charter as revised by Julie, accepted all the redlines,
updated the charter aiming to reflect the views expressed by Chuck, Avri and
Julie and removed all the comments that have been addressed as a result. I
am aware that many of you have not had an opportunity to weigh in yet, so
please feel free to challenge any of these changes and/or suggest
alternative edits / wording. I've also marked those sections that will need
further consideration as either new proposals were made or note was made of
the need to further review by those that provided input to date. Please use
this version for further comments / edits and/or add your feedback to the
email string below.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>
Date: Tuesday 5 August 2014 17:29
To: "CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org" <CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Version of Charter and Notes from
Meeting
This has become a colorful document.
My comments are interspersed.
avri
Dear All,
My comments in purple below are based on the following premise:
The Charter should cover exactly WHAT has to be achieved and only specify
HOW it is to be achieved where this is deemed absolutely necessary. The
more specific the Charter is about the HOW, the more restrictions we place
on the CWG to achieve its outcomes. The CWG should be allowed some
flexibility to decide its own work processes to suit its members, and also
to negotiate and agree its interactions with the ICG.
Thanks so much to Chuck for kicking off this discussion in such a helpful
way. I have responded with some comments and views below, but I am also
planning to go through the document in greater detail in the next day or so
to look at language and consistency of terminology. If I have any further
suggestions in that regard, I will send on to the whole group.
Cheers, Julie
On 5 Aug 2014, at 7:42 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Marika.
All: Please see my comments below.
Chuck
From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org
<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 10:05 AM
To: Jonathan Robinson; Grace Abuhamad; cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org
<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Version of Charter and Notes from
Meeting
Dear All,
As per Jonathan's email, please find attached a clean and redline version in
which we've incorporated the different sections discussed on the mailing
list (please let us know if we've missed anything). Also included are some
suggested edits to address the comments in relation to the definition of
participants / observers / members. Furthermore, I've updated the definition
of divergence in section IV which inadvertently seemed to have the
definition of consensus.
To facilitate the mailing list conversation ahead of the next meeting, we
would like to propose that, similar to last week, volunteers come forward to
propose specific language to address some of the remaining comments / issues
and share their proposals with the mailing list. Looking through the latest
version, we've identified the following issues:
1. Should additional language be included to encourage / allow for
participation of new stakeholders? (comments #1, 5, 6R5)
2.
[Chuck Gomes] I think it is very important for us to include such language.
This was a concern that came out of the Netmundial meeting and already there
have been questions asked by stakeholders not involved in ICANN how they can
participate, not just in naming IANA issues but also IETF, etc. If this is
not addressed in the charter and ultimately by the CWG, there is a risk that
some will question the validity of the process after we are finished. How
about the following:
³Procedures and processes for involving participation of stakeholders who
are not yet involved in ICANN groups involved in the CWG:
a. As soon as a draft charter is approved by the DT for distribution
to the chartering organizations for their approval, the chairs of the DT
should send a request
i. To the chartering
organization stakeholder groups, constituencies and other participants
requesting that they develop and implement a plan to open their processes to
stakeholders who are not yet a part of ICANN processes as applicable and to
provide their plan to their respective chartering organization not later
than 30 September 2014
ii. To organizations that are
not directly a part of the ICANN structure such as ISOC, 1Net and any others
that may be able to reach stakeholders that may not be a part of ICANN
processes that they consider serving as a channel for such stakeholders to
provide input to the CWG and to define their procedures for doing that and
communicate those to the co-chairs of the DT not later than 30 September
2014.
b. Not later than 7 October 2014,
i. The chartering
organizations should submit the results of a.i above to the CWG
ii. The DT co-chairs should
submit the results of a.ii above to the CWG
c. Not later than 14 October 2014, staff supporting the CWG should
incorporate the results received above into the draft work plan.
d. The CWG should edit and approve this part of the work plan not later
than 31 October 2014.
e. A communication describing the procedures for stakeholders that are
not a part of ICANN processes to contribute to the CWG should be prepared
and distributed as widely as possible not later than 7 November 2014.²
[Julie Hammer] My personal feeling is that we should not include any of this
detail (a. - e.) in the Charter. First, the Charter should not include
anything about processes to do with the DT, only with the CWG itself.
Second, as I said in my email opening comment, we should leave it to the CWG
to determine how they want to achieve this. Perhaps though, to add the
emphasis that Chuck is seeking, the wording could be beefed up as follows:
"Procedures and processes for involving to the maximum extent possible
participation of stakeholders who are not yet involved in ICANN groups
involved in the CWG."
[Chuck Gomes] I agree with your premise but I am concerned that if we wait
for the CWG to deal with this, we will have lost a lot of time and the
procedures for participation by those outside of ICANN will not be
facilitated until well after the start of the CWG. I think everything
should be done as soon as possible to allow for their participation as early
as possible in the CWG. Maybe these steps could be handled in advance but
not be part of the charter.
[avri] I think I fall somewhere between the two PoVs. I recommend adding
the points that Chuck made in his (a.), but as suggestions for voluntary
actions they might take and append it to the paragrapgh contributed by
Julie
1. Should further guidance be included on how the ICG is expected to liaise
with the CWG? (comment #3)
2.
[Chuck Gomes] One way to approach this would be for the DT chairs to consult
with the CWG chairs and jointly develop language in this regard for the
charter.
[Julie Hammer] My answer to this question is "No". Again, I think this
needs to be left to the CWG to determine in conjunction with the ICG.
[avri] i think it worth stating that they need to liaise with the ICG. I
think it also reasonable to suggest that ICG be informed of all meetings so
they can particpate if they wish. I would also think that they could be
subscribed to the lists is hey wish. I think it good to set this out and
not have the CWG start with process stuff.
1. Should a target deadline be included in the charter for the deliverables
in the charter or should this be left up to the CWG to determine? (comment
#4)
2. [Chuck Gomes]
[Chuck Gomes] I personally think that the CWG should develop its own target
deadlines but should do so in coordination with the CWG ICG.
[Julie Hammer] Agree, leave this to the CWG.
[avri] Yes, but. There should be a published set of milestone. So they
should be asked to produce this schedule and to keep it updated. they
should also be asked to report the milestones and any change in the
milestone to the chartering groups.
1. In relation to the sentence "Understand the views and concerns of other
participants in the chartering organisation that appoints them" in section
III, several comments have been made (#7 12). How should this sentence be
updated to address the comments made?
2.
[Chuck Gomes] How about something like this: ³Solicit and communicate the
views and concerns of participants in the organization that appoints them.²
[Julie Hammer] I suggest deleting the words 'participants in' here and
simply state "Solicit and communicate the views and concerns of the
organization that appoints them." I don't think it is the responsibility of
CWG members to present the views of individuals within organizations, unless
those views are validated/endorsed by that organization. Should individuals
have a strong view that differs from that of their organization, then they
can provide that view directly to the CWG as an 'observer', or they can
provide a written submission to the CWG or the ICG. However, I am not
advocating that we include such wording in the Charter.
[Chuck Gomes] It is a well established principle in the GNSO that minority
view points should be communicated. If they are individual views, that
should be stated.
[avri] i support Chuck's original formulation. while the particpants can
express their own views, they should also be connectors for others from
their repsective groups and make sure that all views have been considered.
So if a chartering organization is split, and even if there arre just a few
diffeent opinions, the most important thing is that they be considered. the
members should bring these views in it they know them.
1. Definition of consensus it was suggested (comment #14) that a
definition of minority should be included or alternatively use the
definition 'a position that is supported by at least a supermajority of
members'. Is there support for this change or are there other suggestions?
2.
[Chuck Gomes] Using a term like supermajority¹ causes a need for voting,
which in turn makes it necessary to define how votes will be counted fairly
across all the different interest groups and individuals as applicable. It
would take a large amount of time to do that, assuming that we could even
reach agreement on it. I like the definitions provided by Tijani for full
consensus and consensus. I see no need for defining divergence; it would be
the absence of consensus.
[Julie Hammer] I agree with Chuck's views and with using Tijani's
definitions.
[avri] agree
1. Assessing consensus and use of vote/poll (comments #15, 16 and 17) if
the DT would like to make reference to the possibility of using polls, you
may want to consider including language similar to what is currently in the
GNSO WG Guidelines, for example: In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide
that the use of a poll is reasonable to assess the level of support for a
recommendation. However, care should be taking in using polls that they do
not become votes as there are often disagreements about the meanings of the
poll questions or of the poll results. Would there be support for including
a reference to the use of polls, and if so, would the proposed language work
or are there other suggestions?
2.
[Chuck Gomes] I support using the GNSO language or something similar.
[Julie Hammer] I agree.
[avri] agree but am fine with other ways of declaring consensus.
1. Who/how is the final report and possible additional documents (following
adoption) submitted to the ICG should further clarification be added
(comment #20, 21)
2.
[Chuck Gomes] I think it is fine for the chairs to submit both provisional
and final reports to the ICG chairs after approval is confirmed from the
chartering organizations.
[Julie Hammer] I note that the term 'provisional report' was used by
Stephanie in a comment, but as far as I can see, we have not used that term
at all in the draft Charter, only Final and Supplemental Papers. However,
in relation to the question, I agree with Chuck that the Charter should
state that these documents are also submitted to the ICG.
[avri] i think there shuld be a privisional or draft report.
1. Closure of the WG what additional language should be added to address
comments #22 and 23?
2.
[Chuck Gomes] How about something like this? ³In the event that no
consensus is reached by the CWG, the Final Report will document the process
that was followed and will be submitted tothe chartering organizations to
request possible suggestions for mitigating the issues that are preventing
consensus. If consensus can still not be reached, the Final Report will
document the processes followed, including requesting suggestions for
mitigating the issues that are preventing consensus from the chartering
organizations and will be submitted to ICG for their suggestions for
mitigating the issues that are preventing consensus. If consensus can still
not be reached, request for closing the CWG should be made to the chartering
organizations.² (I am not terribly comfortable with this but I like it
better than simply going straight to closing the CWG.)
[Julie Hammer] I agree with Chuck that this is somewhat awkward and will
mull it over and try to come up with an alternative for us to consider.
[avri] i think: the CWG charter will remian in effect until either the work
of the ICG and the IANA Stewardhsip Transiton is done is done or until the
chartering organization remove their support*If the CWG reaches a situation
where it can no longer work effectively, it should notifiy the chartering
organization and request advice.
* note until there is more than 1 SOAC having approved the charter, the
group cannot start its work, once there is only 1 SOAC left in the CWG, it
can be considered closed.
If there are any additional issues that need to be addressed, please share
those with the mailing list. Also, if you would like to volunteer to address
one or more of these issues, please let the mailing list know. Based on the
feedback / suggestions provided, staff can try to hold the pen and
incorporate any language that has the support of the DT in the next
iteration of the draft which will hopefully will get us close to a final
version by our next meeting which has been scheduled for next Monday 11
August.
[Chuck Gomes] Here are some additional issues that I think need to be
addressed by the full DT:
1. Should individuals be allowed to participate directly in the CWG or
only as part of a participating group? I favor the latter for efficiency
reasons and to simplify determination of consensus as long as
representatives from the various groups are required to communicate minority
positions from their groups. If personal views are shared, that should be
made clear.
Chuck, my thinking is that 'individual participating directly in the CWG' =
'observer'. I think that reps from various groups should NOT be required to
communicate minority positions from their group, unless the group requires
them to do so. I general, I would only see reps presenting the endorsed
views of their organization. If individuals within that organization have
other views that their organization does not endorse or wish to have
presented from the organization, then those individuals can submit their
views directly to the CWG as an 'observer', or they can provide a written
submission to the CWG or the ICG (see my discussion at 4. above).
[Chuck Gomes] I think that would be fine as long as there is opportunity to
submit them.
[avri] i think reps should particpate in the manner their chartering
organization demands. As I indicated above, i see them as connectors. what
matter most is that all issues get consideration and bring forward minority
postion iis one way to guarantee that aas many points of view as possible
are considered.
2. Should observers be allowed to contribute directly in CWG
deliberations or only literally as just listen-only observers. In the
latter case, it may be just as well if they listen to the recordings and/or
read transcripts. I thought when we discussed this that our thinking was
that observers could contribute their views but would not be included in
assessing any consensus.
[avri] yes, full particpation except for consensus calls.
3. If subgroups are used, would a maximum of 5 participants per group
in the CWG make it impossible to have geographic diversity in subgroups?
Comment: I am hoping that sub-groups will not ever be required. SSAC is a
small group and will probably struggle to find the minimum of 2 reps to
participate in the CWG.
[avri] we should avoid small groups except in the case of adhoc groupings of
few people working together to put together the first draft of something
4. If the GNSO is limited to a maximum of 5 representatives in the
CWG, that would not cover all of its SGs and constituencies. If the ccNSO
is limited to a maximum of 5 representatives, that would only allow one per
geographic region and possibly no-one from ccTLDs that are not members of
the ccNSO? Should the maximum of 5 be reconsidered? Because this will not
affect SSAC directly (see comment above), I think it is up to other SO/ACs
to decide on this. My only general remark is that whatever the size of the
group, it needs to be people who are actually going to DO the work, not just
have their names listed. I will also bow to others' experience on the
productivity of a very large group.
[avri] 7 is a trending number, how about min=2 max=7
I welcome discussion on all of the above.
Thanks,
Marika
