I am in agreement with the current text. Allan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: August-12-14 5:19 PM To: Becky Burr; 'Marika Konings'; tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn; 'Duchesneau, Stephanie'; 'Gomes, Chuck'; Allan MacGillivray; 'Julie Hammer' Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review All, Regarding this thread on consensus / polling etc. We have agreement in the charter that there will be no voting and judicious (if any) use of polling. As we head to the deadline for the document, are we OK with the latest draft or does this mean edits are being proposed? No need to respond to this question unless you feel (strongly?) that additional edits are required before the 23h59 UTC deadline that we are working towards. Thanks, Jonathan From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: 12 August 2014 14:03 To: Marika Konings; tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn>; Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Allan MacGillivray'; 'Julie Hammer' Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review I think this illustrates how difficult things become when one attempts to parse "consensus" - which is why I strongly support efforts to achieve real consensus and avoid polling and voting, etc. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 at 5:32 AM To: "tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn>" <tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn>>, "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>, 'Allan MacGillivray' <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>>, 'Julie Hammer' <julie.hammer@bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Hi Tijani, all, To share a little bit of background on how the consensus designation process is typically done in GNSO WGs, the Chair typically doesn't only look at the numerical make-up of the WG but also takes into account their affiliation when making an assessment of which consensus level has been achieved. For example, if all those objecting to a certain recommendation are from the same stakeholder group or constituency, while everyone else is in support, the chair may still label that as consensus, even if there are 30 members of the same SG/C vs 30 other members - this is to avoid capture of a WG as otherwise groups might be encouraged to add more individuals from one SG/C to the WG to swing the level of support (and why polling / voting is not recommended). So I presume that is why Chuck meant that numbers do not necessarily matter as hopefully the chair(s) would follow a similar process here where they would also look at the support / absence of support of an SO/AC instead of only counting individual voices when making their assessment. Best regards, Marika From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn>> Reply-To: "tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn>" <tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn>> Date: Tuesday 12 August 2014 11:03 To: "'Duchesneau, Stephanie'" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>, 'Allan MacGillivray' <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>>, 'Julie Hammer' <julie.hammer@bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Chuck and all, You mentioned in the yesterday call that the number of members per group wouldn't matter since no formal vote will be used for decision making. I'm afraid I don't agree since the consensus (used for decision making) will be affected by the number of member per group. Suppose we are 5 ALAC members with 7 GNSO members on a WG where there are only ALAC and GNSO as chartering organizations (total WG members=12). When we have to decide by consensus, the chair can feel there is a consensus if 7 GNSO members agree and 4 or 3 ALAC members disagree. But if there are as many members from ALAC as from GNSO, the consensus will be different. The only case where the number doesn't matter is a decision by full consensus. Nevertheless, I agree with you insisting on avoiding any vote to make a decision by the CWG. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De :cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Duchesneau, Stephanie Envoyé : lundi 11 août 2014 22:28 À : 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Allan MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer Cc : CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Hi Chuck, Would the following better address your concerns: In appointing their members, the chartering organizations should note that the CWG's decision-making methodologies require that CWG members act by consensus, and that polling will only be used in rare instances and with the recognition that such polls do not constitute votes. Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623/www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 4:24 PM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'Allan MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Thanks Stephanie. The minor edits looks okay to me. With regard to the sentence you crafted below, I personally prefer it if we directly include a description of what we want them to see rather than making a reference to because I suspect that some people will not take the time to go to the reference. If we do it as you suggest, I suggest we specifically refer to the section in the charter that contains what we want them to review. What do others think? Chuck From: Duchesneau, Stephanie [mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 11:42 AM To: 'Allan MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer; Gomes, Chuck Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Added the following to language regarding Membership criteria: In appointing members the CWG, the chartering organizations should note the CWG's decision-making methodologies with respect to consensus calls and polling. Have made a few other minor edits throughout reflected in the attached, which I believe are non-substantive/reflective of previous group discussion. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623/www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]>On Behalf Of Allan MacGillivray Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 11:04 AM To: Julie Hammer; Gomes, Chuck Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review I am also comfortable with this wording. Thanks Chuck. From: Julie Hammer [mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com] Sent: August-11-14 11:03 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Allan MacGillivray; CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Hi Chuck, I think this is better wording and am happy with this. Many thanks. Cheers, Julie On 12 Aug 2014, at 12:53 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Allan. Now I know what the intent was. Would the following work: "That proposal may include alternativeoptions for specific features within it, provided that each option carries comparable support from the CWG. " Chuck From: Allan MacGillivray [mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:44 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hammer; CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Chuck - I worked on this with Julie. The objective here was to give the CWG the flexibility of providing more than one option, but not the flexibility to provide dissenting opinions, that is options on which there is no consensus e.g. 'we are happy with any of these options because we have achieved the same level of consensus on all of them'. Allan From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: August-11-14 10:40 AM To: Julie Hammer; CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Importance: High Thanks Julie. The second sentence isn't clear to me. If I had to explain what it means to others, I don't think I could do that. Can you possibly tweak it some? What do you mean by 'specific features'? What kind of features? Maybe some examples would help. Also, what does 'the same level of consensus' mean? Same level of consensus as what? Do you simply mean 'each option has consensus support of the group'? Chuck From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hammer Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:09 AM To: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Hi Everyone, I propose that the first sentence in the section titled 'Goals and Objectives' be amended to read: The primary goal of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal (CWG) will be to produce a consolidated transition proposal for the elements of the IANA Functions relating to the Domain Name System. That proposal may include options for specific features within it, provided that each option carries the same level of consensus from the CWG. Cheers, Julie On 11 Aug 2014, at 6:44 pm, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> wrote: Thanks Marika and CWG Colleagues, The agenda below is the one I expect we will now follow. As proposed a little over a week ago and also below, I think the realistic way to work through the charter in the time allocated for the call is to seek objections to / concerns with the current wording. To the extent that members are OK with the wording, we'll take that as read. Many thanks to those who have contributed to getting this in such good shape over a relatively short time, Talk with you all at 13h00 UTC. Jonathan From: 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: 08 August 2014 12:22 To: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for Monday's DT meeting, subject to revisions by the co-chairs and input from the DT. Having discussed this with Jonathan, we would like to encourage you to identify any other items beyond those listed in agenda item 2 that in your view need to be further discussed by the DT - we will operate under the assumption that apart from those items already identified and additional items that may get flagged prior to the meeting, the current language / proposed edits as in the latest version of the charter as attached are acceptable by all and do not need further discussion. Please note that in the attached version (based on the version that Julie sent earlier today), I've added some proposed wording to the 'additional resources required' section to highlight that this is something the CWG should preferably focus on at an early stage as it is unlikely that the DT at this point in time will be in a position to identify what additional resources the CWG may need. If you have any comments and/or questions, please share those with the list. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - DT Meeting - Monday 11 August at 13.00 UTC 1. Welcome & roll call 2. Draft Charter - Review open items (membership, no consensus, additional resources - DT members to identify which other sections / items need further review ahead of the meeting) 3. Confirm deadline for final edits / comments with aim to have DT Chairs submit charter to all SO/ACs by 14 August at the latest for consideration 4. Any next steps for the DT while SO/ACs consider the charter for approval? 5. AOB 6. Closure _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=RwKIM8ABPpWRsMQbOZ%2BGU03rJv9LI3HVmugPbVx18rI%3D%0A&m=R2MFGAO8TWz4spoqmWsUjlrYVAhlNkp4WANpC1AuiPk%3D%0A&s=4336acc7f6b1b0434e02fb9db39d3ed91d0da8ae916b626d8f6ff9375d346272> ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=5oMOc94Hn3vSLhIopEY7765OI%2FX745xMkS%2B9KXzo0nE%3D%0A&s=55fae77cfb31a29b01fe7c9afe5e94809ddf9eb1972c5167d7fe391be4eee00b> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ50IrZ4n...> est active.