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@verisign.com> wrote:

 

Thanks Marika. 

 

All: Please see my comments below.

 

Chuck

 

From: 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@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)

[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:

“Procedures 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.”

 

[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)

[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)
    [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?

[Chuck Gomes] How about something like this:  “Solicit and communicate the views and concerns of participants in the organization that appoints them.”

 

[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?

[Chuck Gomes] Using a term like ‘supermajority’ 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?

[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)

[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?

[Chuck Gomes] How about something like  this?  “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 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.”  (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