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> Reply-To: "tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn" <tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn> Date: Tuesday 12 August 2014 11:03 To: "'Duchesneau, Stephanie'" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com>, 'Allan MacGillivray' <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>, 'Julie Hammer' <julie.hammer@bigpond.com> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org" <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 wouldn¹t matter since no formal vote will be used for decision making. I¹m afraid I don¹t 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 doesn¹t 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] 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 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 CWG¹s 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 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 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 CWG¹s 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]On Behalf Of Allan MacGillivray Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 11:04 AM To: Julie Hammer; Gomes, Chuck Cc: 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 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> wrote: Thanks Allan. Now I know what the intent was. Would the following work: ³That proposal may include alternativeoptions for specific features within it, provided that each option carries comparable support from the CWG. ² 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 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 them¹. 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 isn¹t clear to me. If I had to explain what it means to others, I don¹t think I could do that. Can you possibly tweak it some? What do you mean by specific features¹? What kind of features? Maybe some examples would help. Also, what does the same level of consensus¹ mean? Same level of consensus as what? Do you simply mean each option has consensus support of the group¹? Chuck From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@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 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, we¹ll 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 <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/lis tinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=RwKIM8ABPpWRsMQ bOZ%2BGU03rJv9LI3HVmugPbVx18rI%3D%0A&m=R2MFGAO8TWz4spoqmWsUjlrYVAhlNkp4WANpC 1AuiPk%3D%0A&s=4336acc7f6b1b0434e02fb9db39d3ed91d0da8ae916b626d8f6ff9375d346 272> <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.
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 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.
Becky, As I think I have tried to communicate already, I fully agree with you with regard to voting, but I disagree regarding polling. I have been in multiple WGs where polling was used very effectively to get a sense of the level of consensus and whether additional work is needed. It really hasn't been that hard for the chair(s) to decide the level of consensus. How would you recommend determining what level of consensus exists? Polling can be as simple as asking whether there are any who do not support a position. In the case of the GNSO, polling can be used to determine what level of support there is from each of its SGs and constituencies; this is helpful because any recommendations will ultimately have to be approved by the GNSO Council, where formal voting will occur. By getting a reasonable sense of the level of support earlier in the process, the chances are increased that Council approval will happen without having to go back to the WG. Chuck From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:03 AM To: 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 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.
Hi, I have a different feeling about the times we have used polling in GNSO groups and tend to be against it, and remember arguing against their use in a variety of WGs. So tend to agree with Becky and others on this. But I think the way we have the charter now, leaves it in there as a tool, a tool with a warning. let the chairs argue about it if when they feel it is needs and going to be helpful. I hope what is int the document is a good enough consensus point. BTW< I am fine with the doc as it stands. I made it available to the NCSG discussion list and what little comment I got was praise for being well thought out. avri On 12-Aug-14 14:38, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Becky,
As I think I have tried to communicate already, I fully agree with you with regard to voting, but I disagree regarding polling. I have been in multiple WGs where polling was used very effectively to get a sense of the level of consensus and whether additional work is needed. It really hasn’t been that hard for the chair(s) to decide the level of consensus. How would you recommend determining what level of consensus exists? Polling can be as simple as asking whether there are any who do not support a position. In the case of the GNSO, polling can be used to determine what level of support there is from each of its SGs and constituencies; this is helpful because any recommendations will ultimately have to be approved by the GNSO Council, where formal voting will occur. By getting a reasonable sense of the level of support earlier in the process, the chances are increased that Council approval will happen without having to go back to the WG.
Chuck
*From:*Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:03 AM *To:* 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
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, 4^th 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, 4^th 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/list...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ50IrZ4n...>
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.
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Avri, I would like to better understand why you are against polling with examples of how it has been problematic. Also, without any polling, how would you assess the level of consensus on an issue? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:05 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Hi, I have a different feeling about the times we have used polling in GNSO groups and tend to be against it, and remember arguing against their use in a variety of WGs. So tend to agree with Becky and others on this. But I think the way we have the charter now, leaves it in there as a tool, a tool with a warning. let the chairs argue about it if when they feel it is needs and going to be helpful. I hope what is int the document is a good enough consensus point. BTW< I am fine with the doc as it stands. I made it available to the NCSG discussion list and what little comment I got was praise for being well thought out. avri On 12-Aug-14 14:38, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Becky,
As I think I have tried to communicate already, I fully agree with you with regard to voting, but I disagree regarding polling. I have been in multiple WGs where polling was used very effectively to get a sense of the level of consensus and whether additional work is needed. It really hasn't been that hard for the chair(s) to decide the level of consensus. How would you recommend determining what level of consensus exists? Polling can be as simple as asking whether there are any who do not support a position. In the case of the GNSO, polling can be used to determine what level of support there is from each of its SGs and constituencies; this is helpful because any recommendations will ultimately have to be approved by the GNSO Council, where formal voting will occur. By getting a reasonable sense of the level of support earlier in the process, the chances are increased that Council approval will happen without having to go back to the WG.
Chuck
*From:*Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:03 AM *To:* 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
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, 4^th 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, 4^th 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-stewardshi p-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/mailm an/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=RwK IM8ABPpWRsMQbOZ%2BGU03rJv9LI3HVmugPbVx18rI%3D%0A&m=R2MFGAO8TWz4spoqmWs UjlrYVAhlNkp4WANpC1AuiPk%3D%0A&s=4336acc7f6b1b0434e02fb9db39d3ed91d0da 8ae916b626d8f6ff9375d346272>
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ 50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow OGDBoZw%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=lQ 50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow OGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=5oMOc94Hn3vSLhIopEY7765OI%2FX745xMkS%2B9KXzo0nE%3D%0A& s=55fae77cfb31a29b01fe7c9afe5e94809ddf9eb1972c5167d7fe391be4eee00b> est active.
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Maybe it's time to introduce Humming as in the IETF? Saludos! León
El 12/08/2014, a las 14:32, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> escribió:
Avri,
I would like to better understand why you are against polling with examples of how it has been problematic. Also, without any polling, how would you assess the level of consensus on an issue?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:05 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Hi,
I have a different feeling about the times we have used polling in GNSO groups and tend to be against it, and remember arguing against their use in a variety of WGs. So tend to agree with Becky and others on this.
But I think the way we have the charter now, leaves it in there as a tool, a tool with a warning. let the chairs argue about it if when they feel it is needs and going to be helpful.
I hope what is int the document is a good enough consensus point.
BTW< I am fine with the doc as it stands. I made it available to the NCSG discussion list and what little comment I got was praise for being well thought out.
avri
On 12-Aug-14 14:38, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Becky,
As I think I have tried to communicate already, I fully agree with you with regard to voting, but I disagree regarding polling. I have been in multiple WGs where polling was used very effectively to get a sense of the level of consensus and whether additional work is needed. It really hasn't been that hard for the chair(s) to decide the level of consensus. How would you recommend determining what level of consensus exists? Polling can be as simple as asking whether there are any who do not support a position. In the case of the GNSO, polling can be used to determine what level of support there is from each of its SGs and constituencies; this is helpful because any recommendations will ultimately have to be approved by the GNSO Council, where formal voting will occur. By getting a reasonable sense of the level of support earlier in the process, the chances are increased that Council approval will happen without having to go back to the WG.
Chuck
*From:*Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:03 AM *To:* 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
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, 4^th 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, 4^th 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-stewardshi p-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/mailm an/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=RwK IM8ABPpWRsMQbOZ%2BGU03rJv9LI3HVmugPbVx18rI%3D%0A&m=R2MFGAO8TWz4spoqmWs UjlrYVAhlNkp4WANpC1AuiPk%3D%0A&s=4336acc7f6b1b0434e02fb9db39d3ed91d0da 8ae916b626d8f6ff9375d346272>
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ 50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow OGDBoZw%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=lQ 50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow OGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=5oMOc94Hn3vSLhIopEY7765OI%2FX745xMkS%2B9KXzo0nE%3D%0A& s=55fae77cfb31a29b01fe7c9afe5e94809ddf9eb1972c5167d7fe391be4eee00b> est active.
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Hi, On 12-Aug-14 15:31, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
I would like to better understand why you are against polling with examples of how it has been problematic.
Because as soon as the poll is taken people talk about it as if a vote had sort of been taken. Polls tend to have some tendency to harden positions. Often the point becomes one of fighting over the wording of the question. When that happens, I think time is wasted. I think I have had problems with them in every group where they have been used. I think they skew the consensus discussion in favor of the majority positions, and give it some appearance of 'moral weight of majority' But enough people in GNSO like them, so I have learned to live with them but always 'vote' against them. Also, without any polling,
how would you assess the level of consensus on an issue?
WG have been finding the consensus point for a long time without polls. One of the tried and true methods is to ask the group and keep circling back to the issue until the consensus point is found. Even a hum works better that a poll because it does not include counting. But is this an issue for the current charter? why is this an issue for the current charter? Are you looking to require polls? avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:05 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Hi,
I have a different feeling about the times we have used polling in GNSO groups and tend to be against it, and remember arguing against their use in a variety of WGs. So tend to agree with Becky and others on this.
But I think the way we have the charter now, leaves it in there as a tool, a tool with a warning. let the chairs argue about it if when they feel it is needs and going to be helpful.
I hope what is int the document is a good enough consensus point.
BTW< I am fine with the doc as it stands. I made it available to the NCSG discussion list and what little comment I got was praise for being well thought out.
avri
On 12-Aug-14 14:38, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Becky,
As I think I have tried to communicate already, I fully agree with you with regard to voting, but I disagree regarding polling. I have been in multiple WGs where polling was used very effectively to get a sense of the level of consensus and whether additional work is needed. It really hasn't been that hard for the chair(s) to decide the level of consensus. How would you recommend determining what level of consensus exists? Polling can be as simple as asking whether there are any who do not support a position. In the case of the GNSO, polling can be used to determine what level of support there is from each of its SGs and constituencies; this is helpful because any recommendations will ultimately have to be approved by the GNSO Council, where formal voting will occur. By getting a reasonable sense of the level of support earlier in the process, the chances are increased that Council approval will happen without having to go back to the WG.
Chuck
*From:*Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:03 AM *To:* 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
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, 4^th 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, 4^th 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-stewardshi
p-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/mailm
an/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=RwK
IM8ABPpWRsMQbOZ%2BGU03rJv9LI3HVmugPbVx18rI%3D%0A&m=R2MFGAO8TWz4spoqmWs
UjlrYVAhlNkp4WANpC1AuiPk%3D%0A&s=4336acc7f6b1b0434e02fb9db39d3ed91d0da
8ae916b626d8f6ff9375d346272>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ
50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow
OGDBoZw%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=lQ
50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow
OGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=5oMOc94Hn3vSLhIopEY7765OI%2FX745xMkS%2B9KXzo0nE%3D%0A&
s=55fae77cfb31a29b01fe7c9afe5e94809ddf9eb1972c5167d7fe391be4eee00b>
est active.
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Not to be a troublemaker, but we all can recall a particular straw poll at the ITU plenipot that was then heralded as a vote. Becky Burr Sent from my iPad.
On Aug 12, 2014, at 4:10 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 12-Aug-14 15:31, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Avri,
I would like to better understand why you are against polling with examples of how it has been problematic.
Because as soon as the poll is taken people talk about it as if a vote had sort of been taken. Polls tend to have some tendency to harden positions.
Often the point becomes one of fighting over the wording of the question. When that happens, I think time is wasted.
I think I have had problems with them in every group where they have been used. I think they skew the consensus discussion in favor of the majority positions, and give it some appearance of 'moral weight of majority'
But enough people in GNSO like them, so I have learned to live with them but always 'vote' against them.
Also, without any polling,
how would you assess the level of consensus on an issue?
WG have been finding the consensus point for a long time without polls. One of the tried and true methods is to ask the group and keep circling back to the issue until the consensus point is found.
Even a hum works better that a poll because it does not include counting.
But is this an issue for the current charter? why is this an issue for the current charter? Are you looking to require polls?
avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:05 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Hi,
I have a different feeling about the times we have used polling in GNSO groups and tend to be against it, and remember arguing against their use in a variety of WGs. So tend to agree with Becky and others on this.
But I think the way we have the charter now, leaves it in there as a tool, a tool with a warning. let the chairs argue about it if when they feel it is needs and going to be helpful.
I hope what is int the document is a good enough consensus point.
BTW< I am fine with the doc as it stands. I made it available to the NCSG discussion list and what little comment I got was praise for being well thought out.
avri
On 12-Aug-14 14:38, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Becky,
As I think I have tried to communicate already, I fully agree with you with regard to voting, but I disagree regarding polling. I have been in multiple WGs where polling was used very effectively to get a sense of the level of consensus and whether additional work is needed. It really hasn't been that hard for the chair(s) to decide the level of consensus. How would you recommend determining what level of consensus exists? Polling can be as simple as asking whether there are any who do not support a position. In the case of the GNSO, polling can be used to determine what level of support there is from each of its SGs and constituencies; this is helpful because any recommendations will ultimately have to be approved by the GNSO Council, where formal voting will occur. By getting a reasonable sense of the level of support earlier in the process, the chances are increased that Council approval will happen without having to go back to the WG.
Chuck
*From:*Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:03 AM *To:* 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
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, 4^th 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, 4^th 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-stewardshi
p-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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/list... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailm an/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=RwK IM8ABPpWRsMQbOZ%2BGU03rJv9LI3HVmugPbVx18rI%3D%0A&m=R2MFGAO8TWz4spoqmWs UjlrYVAhlNkp4WANpC1AuiPk%3D%0A&s=4336acc7f6b1b0434e02fb9db39d3ed91d0da 8ae916b626d8f6ff9375d346272>
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ 50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow OGDBoZw%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=lQ 50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow OGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=5oMOc94Hn3vSLhIopEY7765OI%2FX745xMkS%2B9KXzo0nE%3D%0A& s=55fae77cfb31a29b01fe7c9afe5e94809ddf9eb1972c5167d7fe391be4eee00b> est active.
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/list... _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/list...
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/list...
Thanks Avri. That is helpful. I definitely don't think polls should be required and, if used, should be used cautiously to minimize the concerns you and Becky cite. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Burr, Becky" Date:08/12/2014 4:28 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Not to be a troublemaker, but we all can recall a particular straw poll at the ITU plenipot that was then heralded as a vote. Becky Burr Sent from my iPad.
On Aug 12, 2014, at 4:10 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 12-Aug-14 15:31, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Avri,
I would like to better understand why you are against polling with examples of how it has been problematic.
Because as soon as the poll is taken people talk about it as if a vote had sort of been taken. Polls tend to have some tendency to harden positions.
Often the point becomes one of fighting over the wording of the question. When that happens, I think time is wasted.
I think I have had problems with them in every group where they have been used. I think they skew the consensus discussion in favor of the majority positions, and give it some appearance of 'moral weight of majority'
But enough people in GNSO like them, so I have learned to live with them but always 'vote' against them.
Also, without any polling,
how would you assess the level of consensus on an issue?
WG have been finding the consensus point for a long time without polls. One of the tried and true methods is to ask the group and keep circling back to the issue until the consensus point is found.
Even a hum works better that a poll because it does not include counting.
But is this an issue for the current charter? why is this an issue for the current charter? Are you looking to require polls?
avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:05 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Hi,
I have a different feeling about the times we have used polling in GNSO groups and tend to be against it, and remember arguing against their use in a variety of WGs. So tend to agree with Becky and others on this.
But I think the way we have the charter now, leaves it in there as a tool, a tool with a warning. let the chairs argue about it if when they feel it is needs and going to be helpful.
I hope what is int the document is a good enough consensus point.
BTW< I am fine with the doc as it stands. I made it available to the NCSG discussion list and what little comment I got was praise for being well thought out.
avri
On 12-Aug-14 14:38, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Becky,
As I think I have tried to communicate already, I fully agree with you with regard to voting, but I disagree regarding polling. I have been in multiple WGs where polling was used very effectively to get a sense of the level of consensus and whether additional work is needed. It really hasn't been that hard for the chair(s) to decide the level of consensus. How would you recommend determining what level of consensus exists? Polling can be as simple as asking whether there are any who do not support a position. In the case of the GNSO, polling can be used to determine what level of support there is from each of its SGs and constituencies; this is helpful because any recommendations will ultimately have to be approved by the GNSO Council, where formal voting will occur. By getting a reasonable sense of the level of support earlier in the process, the chances are increased that Council approval will happen without having to go back to the WG.
Chuck
*From:*Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:03 AM *To:* 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
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> <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, 4^th 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, 4^th 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-stewardshi
p-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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/list... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailm an/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=RwK IM8ABPpWRsMQbOZ%2BGU03rJv9LI3HVmugPbVx18rI%3D%0A&m=R2MFGAO8TWz4spoqmWs UjlrYVAhlNkp4WANpC1AuiPk%3D%0A&s=4336acc7f6b1b0434e02fb9db39d3ed91d0da 8ae916b626d8f6ff9375d346272>
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ 50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow OGDBoZw%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=lQ 50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow OGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=5oMOc94Hn3vSLhIopEY7765OI%2FX745xMkS%2B9KXzo0nE%3D%0A& s=55fae77cfb31a29b01fe7c9afe5e94809ddf9eb1972c5167d7fe391be4eee00b> est active.
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/list... _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/list...
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/list...
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
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] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: 12 August 2014 14:03 To: 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 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 / www.neustar.biz From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 at 5:32 AM To: "tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn" <tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn>, "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com>, 'Allan MacGillivray' <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>, 'Julie Hammer' <julie.hammer@bigpond.com> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org" <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> Reply-To: "tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn" <tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn> Date: Tuesday 12 August 2014 11:03 To: "'Duchesneau, Stephanie'" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com>, 'Allan MacGillivray' <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>, 'Julie Hammer' <julie.hammer@bigpond.com> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org" <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 wouldnt matter since no formal vote will be used for decision making. Im afraid I dont 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 doesnt 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] 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 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 CWGs 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/ <http://www.neustar.biz/> 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 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 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 CWGs 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/ <http://www.neustar.biz/> 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]On Behalf Of Allan MacGillivray Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 11:04 AM To: Julie Hammer; Gomes, Chuck Cc: 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 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> 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 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: <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: August-11-14 10:40 AM To: Julie Hammer; <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> 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 isnt clear to me. If I had to explain what it means to others, I dont 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: <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> 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: <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> 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 < <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> 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, well 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: <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> 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: <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> 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 <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/lis tinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=RwKIM8ABPpWRsMQ bOZ%2BGU03rJv9LI3HVmugPbVx18rI%3D%0A&m=R2MFGAO8TWz4spoqmWsUjlrYVAhlNkp4WANpC 1AuiPk%3D%0A&s=4336acc7f6b1b0434e02fb9db39d3ed91d0da8ae916b626d8f6ff9375d346 272> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ50IrZ4 n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0 A&m=5oMOc94Hn3vSLhIopEY7765OI%2FX745xMkS%2B9KXzo0nE%3D%0A&s=55fae77cfb31a29b 01fe7c9afe5e94809ddf9eb1972c5167d7fe391be4eee00b> 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=lQ50IrZ4 n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0 A&m=5oMOc94Hn3vSLhIopEY7765OI%2FX745xMkS%2B9KXzo0nE%3D%0A&s=55fae77cfb31a29b 01fe7c9afe5e94809ddf9eb1972c5167d7fe391be4eee00b> est active.
I am ok with current draft 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 From: 'Jonathan ' <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 at 5:19 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "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 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.
I am OK with the current deaft Saludos! León El 12/08/2014, a las 16:20, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> escribió: 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 <cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky *Sent:* 12 August 2014 14:03 *To:* 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 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 / www.neustar.biz *From: *Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, August 12, 2014 at 5:32 AM *To: *"tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn" <tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn>, "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>, Chuck Gomes < cgomes@verisign.com>, 'Allan MacGillivray' <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>, 'Julie Hammer' <julie.hammer@bigpond.com> *Cc: *"CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org" <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> *Reply-To: *"tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn" <tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn> *Date: *Tuesday 12 August 2014 11:03 *To: *"'Duchesneau, Stephanie'" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com>, 'Allan MacGillivray' < allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>, 'Julie Hammer' <julie.hammer@bigpond.com> *Cc: *"CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org" <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 <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 *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 ------------------------------ 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 <cgomes@verisign.com>] *Sent:* Monday, August 11, 2014 4:24 PM *To:* Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'Allan MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer *Cc:* 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 <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 *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 ------------------------------ 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]*On Behalf Of *Allan MacGillivray *Sent:* Monday, August 11, 2014 11:04 AM *To:* Julie Hammer; Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* 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 <julie.hammer@bigpond.com>] *Sent:* August-11-14 11:03 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Allan MacGillivray; 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> 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 <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>] *Sent:* Monday, August 11, 2014 10:44 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hammer; 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] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* August-11-14 10:40 AM *To:* Julie Hammer; 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 <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 *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> 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 <cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings *Sent:* 08 August 2014 12:22 *To:* 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/list...> ------------------------------ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ50IrZ4n...> 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. _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
I am OK with the current text. Byron Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network. From: Jonathan Robinson Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:20 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] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: 12 August 2014 14:03 To: 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 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.
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.
Thank you very much Marika for your explanation. Very much appreciated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 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 : Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Envoyé : mardi 12 août 2014 10:33 À : tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn; 'Duchesneau, Stephanie'; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Allan MacGillivray'; 'Julie Hammer' Cc : CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org Objet : 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> Reply-To: "tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn" <tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn> Date: Tuesday 12 August 2014 11:03 To: "'Duchesneau, Stephanie'" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com>, 'Allan MacGillivray' <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>, 'Julie Hammer' <julie.hammer@bigpond.com> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org" <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 wouldnt matter since no formal vote will be used for decision making. Im afraid I dont 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 doesnt 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] 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 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 CWGs 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/ <http://www.neustar.biz/> 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 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 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 CWGs 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/ <http://www.neustar.biz/> 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]On Behalf Of Allan MacGillivray Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 11:04 AM To: Julie Hammer; Gomes, Chuck Cc: 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 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> 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 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: <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: August-11-14 10:40 AM To: Julie Hammer; <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> 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 isnt clear to me. If I had to explain what it means to others, I dont 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: <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> 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: <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> 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 < <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> 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, well 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: <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> 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: <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> 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 <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/lis tinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=RwKIM8ABPpWRsMQ bOZ%2BGU03rJv9LI3HVmugPbVx18rI%3D%0A&m=R2MFGAO8TWz4spoqmWsUjlrYVAhlNkp4WANpC 1AuiPk%3D%0A&s=4336acc7f6b1b0434e02fb9db39d3ed91d0da8ae916b626d8f6ff9375d346 272> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Image supprimée par l'expéditeur. Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active. --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
participants (9)
-
Allan MacGillivray -
Avri Doria -
Burr, Becky -
Byron Holland -
Gomes, Chuck -
Jonathan Robinson -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Marika Konings -
Tijani BEN JEMAA