Dear All, I have been through the document again and made some updates/changes some of which are just trivial word-smithing (re-ordering, cutting out duplication, etc) but some a bit more substantive. To summarise, I have: Defined the core deliverable as "IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal related to the Naming Functions" (the Proposal) (Thanks Tijani for pointing out that we'd actually missed that!) Standardized on using the term "chartering organizations" rather than "participating organizations", "participating stakeholders" or "participating SOs and ACs" Replaced "working group" or "Working Group" with "CWG", after defining the acronym in the first instance Replaced "Coordinating Group" with "ICG", after defining the acronym in the first instance Made sure that all references to the "Proposal" are in the singular and not plural Inserted Tijani's proposed definitions for 'Full Consensus' and 'Consensus' as there seemed to be fairly general support for these. I have tried to make sense in my own mind of the reference to a "supplemental paper" and have represented this as a type of updated draft. However, I'm not fully convinced that this extra round of submission and approval is strictly necessary. Having said that, perhaps there is something about this proposed process that I've misunderstood. I also note that we have not addressed the issue of submitting the Final Proposal to the ICG, so I have left this as something to be negotiated between the CWG co-chairs and the ICG reps. As I see it, there are a couple of ways in which this could happen...either our ICG Reps take the Final Proposal to the ICG Table, or the CWG Co-chairs deliver it to the ICG co-chairs (or maybe even both??). Anyway, I have done this as an updated document which is now very heavy with track changes, but I thought to do it any other way just creates work for someone to update the document later on. Please do feel free to comment/criticise as you see fit. Just trying to move the process along as quickly as possible. Must stop before it drives me crazy!!! Cheers, Julie On 5 Aug 2014, at 11:42 am, Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com> wrote: Dear All, My comments in purple below are based on the following premise: The Charter should cover exactly WHAT has to be achieved and only specify HOW it is to be achieved where this is deemed absolutely necessary. The more specific the Charter is about the HOW, the more restrictions we place on the CWG to achieve its outcomes. The CWG should be allowed some flexibility to decide its own work processes to suit its members, and also to negotiate and agree its interactions with the ICG. Thanks so much to Chuck for kicking off this discussion in such a helpful way. I have responded with some comments and views below, but I am also planning to go through the document in greater detail in the next day or so to look at language and consistency of terminology. If I have any further suggestions in that regard, I will send on to the whole group. Cheers, Julie On 5 Aug 2014, at 7:42 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Thanks Marika. All: Please see my comments below. Chuck From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 10:05 AM To: Jonathan Robinson; Grace Abuhamad; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Version of Charter and Notes from Meeting Dear All, As per Jonathan's email, please find attached a clean and redline version in which we've incorporated the different sections discussed on the mailing list (please let us know if we've missed anything). Also included are some suggested edits to address the comments in relation to the definition of participants / observers / members. Furthermore, I've updated the definition of divergence in section IV which inadvertently seemed to have the definition of consensus. To facilitate the mailing list conversation ahead of the next meeting, we would like to propose that, similar to last week, volunteers come forward to propose specific language to address some of the remaining comments / issues and share their proposals with the mailing list. Looking through the latest version, we've identified the following issues: Should additional language be included to encourage / allow for participation of new stakeholders? (comments #1, 5, 6R5) [Chuck Gomes] I think it is very important for us to include such language. This was a concern that came out of the Netmundial meeting and already there have been questions asked by stakeholders not involved in ICANN how they can participate, not just in naming IANA issues but also IETF, etc. If this is not addressed in the charter and ultimately by the CWG, there is a risk that some will question the validity of the process after we are finished. How about the following: “Procedures and processes for involving participation of stakeholders who are not yet involved in ICANN groups involved in the CWG: a. As soon as a draft charter is approved by the DT for distribution to the chartering organizations for their approval, the chairs of the DT should send a request i. To the chartering organization stakeholder groups, constituencies and other participants requesting that they develop and implement a plan to open their processes to stakeholders who are not yet a part of ICANN processes as applicable and to provide their plan to their respective chartering organization not later than 30 September 2014 ii. To organizations that are not directly a part of the ICANN structure such as ISOC, 1Net and any others that may be able to reach stakeholders that may not be a part of ICANN processes that they consider serving as a channel for such stakeholders to provide input to the CWG and to define their procedures for doing that and communicate those to the co-chairs of the DT not later than 30 September 2014. b. Not later than 7 October 2014, i. The chartering organizations should submit the results of a.i above to the CWG ii. The DT co-chairs should submit the results of a.ii above to the CWG c. Not later than 14 October 2014, staff supporting the CWG should incorporate the results received above into the draft work plan. d. The CWG should edit and approve this part of the work plan not later than 31 October 2014. e. A communication describing the procedures for stakeholders that are not a part of ICANN processes to contribute to the CWG should be prepared and distributed as widely as possible not later than 7 November 2014.” [Julie Hammer] My personal feeling is that we should not include any of this detail (a. - e.) in the Charter. First, the Charter should not include anything about processes to do with the DT, only with the CWG itself. Second, as I said in my email opening comment, we should leave it to the CWG to determine how they want to achieve this. Perhaps though, to add the emphasis that Chuck is seeking, the wording could be beefed up as follows: "Procedures and processes for involving to the maximum extent possible participation of stakeholders who are not yet involved in ICANN groups involved in the CWG." Should further guidance be included on how the ICG is expected to liaise with the CWG? (comment #3) [Chuck Gomes] One way to approach this would be for the DT chairs to consult with the CWG chairs and jointly develop language in this regard for the charter. [Julie Hammer] My answer to this question is "No". Again, I think this needs to be left to the CWG to determine in conjunction with the ICG. Should a target deadline be included in the charter for the deliverables in the charter or should this be left up to the CWG to determine? (comment #4)[Chuck Gomes] [Chuck Gomes] I personally think that the CWG should develop its own target deadlines but should do so in coordination with the CWG ICG. [Julie Hammer] Agree, leave this to the CWG. In relation to the sentence "Understand the views and concerns of other participants in the chartering organisation that appoints them" in section III, several comments have been made (#7 – 12). How should this sentence be updated to address the comments made? [Chuck Gomes] How about something like this: “Solicit and communicate the views and concerns of participants in the organization that appoints them.” [Julie Hammer] I suggest deleting the words 'participants in' here and simply state "Solicit and communicate the views and concerns of the organization that appoints them." I don't think it is the responsibility of CWG members to present the views of individuals within organizations, unless those views are validated/endorsed by that organization. Should individuals have a strong view that differs from that of their organization, then they can provide that view directly to the CWG as an 'observer', or they can provide a written submission to the CWG or the ICG. However, I am not advocating that we include such wording in the Charter. Definition of consensus – it was suggested (comment #14) that a definition of minority should be included or alternatively use the definition 'a position that is supported by at least a supermajority of members'. Is there support for this change or are there other suggestions? [Chuck Gomes] Using a term like ‘supermajority’ causes a need for voting, which in turn makes it necessary to define how votes will be counted fairly across all the different interest groups and individuals as applicable. It would take a large amount of time to do that, assuming that we could even reach agreement on it. I like the definitions provided by Tijani for full consensus and consensus. I see no need for defining divergence; it would be the absence of consensus. [Julie Hammer] I agree with Chuck's views and with using Tijani's definitions. Assessing consensus and use of vote/poll (comments #15, 16 and 17) – if the DT would like to make reference to the possibility of using polls, you may want to consider including language similar to what is currently in the GNSO WG Guidelines, for example: In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a poll is reasonable to assess the level of support for a recommendation. However, care should be taking in using polls that they do not become votes as there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results. Would there be support for including a reference to the use of polls, and if so, would the proposed language work or are there other suggestions? [Chuck Gomes] I support using the GNSO language or something similar. [Julie Hammer] I agree. Who/how is the final report and possible additional documents (following adoption) submitted to the ICG – should further clarification be added (comment #20, 21) [Chuck Gomes] I think it is fine for the chairs to submit both provisional and final reports to the ICG chairs after approval is confirmed from the chartering organizations. [Julie Hammer] I note that the term 'provisional report' was used by Stephanie in a comment, but as far as I can see, we have not used that term at all in the draft Charter, only Final and Supplemental Papers. However, in relation to the question, I agree with Chuck that the Charter should state that these documents are also submitted to the ICG. Closure of the WG – what additional language should be added to address comments #22 and 23? [Chuck Gomes] How about something like this? “In the event that no consensus is reached by the CWG, the Final Report will document the process that was followed and will be submitted tothe chartering organizations to request possible suggestions for mitigating the issues that are preventing consensus. If consensus can still not be reached, the Final Report will document the processes followed, including requesting suggestions for mitigating the issues that are preventing consensus from the chartering organizations and will be submitted to ICG for their suggestions for mitigating the issues that are preventing consensus. If consensus can still not be reached, request for closing the CWG should be made to the chartering organizations.” (I am not terribly comfortable with this but I like it better than simply going straight to closing the CWG.) [Julie Hammer] I agree with Chuck that this is somewhat awkward and will mull it over and try to come up with an alternative for us to consider. If there are any additional issues that need to be addressed, please share those with the mailing list. Also, if you would like to volunteer to address one or more of these issues, please let the mailing list know. Based on the feedback / suggestions provided, staff can try to hold the pen and incorporate any language that has the support of the DT in the next iteration of the draft which will hopefully will get us close to a final version by our next meeting which has been scheduled for next Monday 11 August. [Chuck Gomes] Here are some additional issues that I think need to be addressed by the full DT: 1. Should individuals be allowed to participate directly in the CWG or only as part of a participating group? I favor the latter for efficiency reasons and to simplify determination of consensus as long as representatives from the various groups are required to communicate minority positions from their groups. If personal views are shared, that should be made clear. Chuck, my thinking is that 'individual participating directly in the CWG' = 'observer'. I think that reps from various groups should NOT be required to communicate minority positions from their group, unless the group requires them to do so. I general, I would only see reps presenting the endorsed views of their organization. If individuals within that organization have other views that their organization does not endorse or wish to have presented from the organization, then those individuals can submit their views directly to the CWG as an 'observer', or they can provide a written submission to the CWG or the ICG (see my discussion at 4. above). 2. Should observers be allowed to contribute directly in CWG deliberations or only literally as just listen-only observers. In the latter case, it may be just as well if they listen to the recordings and/or read transcripts. I thought when we discussed this that our thinking was that observers could contribute their views but would not be included in assessing any consensus. 3. If subgroups are used, would a maximum of 5 participants per group in the CWG make it impossible to have geographic diversity in subgroups? Comment: I am hoping that sub-groups will not ever be required. SSAC is a small group and will probably struggle to find the minimum of 2 reps to participate in the CWG. 4. If the GNSO is limited to a maximum of 5 representatives in the CWG, that would not cover all of its SGs and constituencies. If the ccNSO is limited to a maximum of 5 representatives, that would only allow one per geographic region and possibly no-one from ccTLDs that are not members of the ccNSO? Should the maximum of 5 be reconsidered? Because this will not affect SSAC directly (see comment above), I think it is up to other SO/ACs to decide on this. My only general remark is that whatever the size of the group, it needs to be people who are actually going to DO the work, not just have their names listed. I will also bow to others' experience on the productivity of a very large group. I welcome discussion on all of the above. Thanks, Marika From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Date: Monday 4 August 2014 10:54 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Version of Charter and Notes from Meeting All, Looking back a week and with our target to complete the draft charter on or shortly a 14 August, it seems sensible to pick up on the actions from last week. Essentially, we have agreed to try to continue to make iterative improvements over the course of this week ahead of meeting for review next week Monday. Please could staff circulate a redline and clean version of the charter as it currently stands, including incorporating the latest edits discussed / agreed on this list but not necessarily incorporated into the draft yet. Once we have this latest version, please could all DT members re-read and consider: A. Your level of comfort with current / latest edits and proposed changes (if any) B. Any changes you wish to propose to the document as it now stands (particularly section III on) Also: · GAC – Do we need to issue any formal note of invitation to join the CWG or should that now wait until we have the Charter in a form we are willing to distribute to all SO & ACs? · Warning of pre-consideration to SO & Acs. Informal routes agreed but supplemented by the record of a formal note from CCWG Co-chairs required. Next meeting is August 11th, 13h00 UTC. Thanks, Jonathan From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: 28 July 2014 21:01 To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Version of Charter and Notes from Meeting Dear All, As discussed during our meeting today, please find attached the latest version of the draft charter. Notes from today's meeting are below and available on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/Qr3hAg Agenda - 28 July 2014 1. Welcome and roll-call 2. Confirmation of meeting notes and action items 3. Timeline Approval of charter and call/appointment of volunteers WG (In order to adopt charter in time, organize membership of the WG itself and have a first full-blown face to face meeting in LA, the draft charter needs to be completed by 14 August, order of approval will be ccNSO (21 August), ALAC (26 August), SSAC (2 September) and GNSO (4 September)). 4. Timelines and coordination with ICG 5. Run-through latest version of draft charter 6. AOB 7. Closure Meeting Notes / Action Items 28/7: ? Meeting notes from 21/7 accepted ? Byron reached out to GAC chair with reminder and re-invitation to join CWG. Action: Follow up next week for further suggestion regarding GAC participation in CWG ? Add to agenda for meeting: resourcing; Root Zone maintainer; public consultation. o Resourcing was not discussed: defer for 4 August o Public Consultation – partly addressed in Timeline overview (Item 4 on the agenda) Timeline ? Who will forewarn SSAC, and other groups, to allow pre-consideration — Action: Pre-warning by members and formal documentation by chairs of the convening SOs (Byron and Jonathan) to invite the SOs and ACs as well. Rationale: documentation of process. ? Linking to Accountability process: to date the timeline and activities of the Accountability Process are not defined enough in detail to map them against the IANA Stewardship Transition Process. Action: Staff to evolve timeline with Accountability process when that information becomes available. Action: Share timelines with staff (Bart). Discussion draft charter ? Comment 1: General agreement of attendees that goal is that WG will deliver a single proposal, while recognizing more then one could evolve, with aim to get to one proposal through iterative process. Action: Wordsmith language – volunteers for capturing language on "single proposal": Julie, Leon, and Allan ? Highlighted phrase to .INT deleted ? Language on Root Zone Maintaining process: re-focus on role of NTIA in Root Zone maintainer process. Action: Avri and Chuck to propose language to the group. Group aware of Chuck’s role and no objection. ? Relation with Accountability Process: Avri's comment related to ICG language acceptable to all and will be included. ? Start with Section III next week (4 August). _______________________________________________ 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

Thanks for the good feedback Julie. I inserted some responses in light blue below. Chuck From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hammer Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 9:43 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Version of Charter and Notes from Meeting Dear All, My comments in purple below are based on the following premise: The Charter should cover exactly WHAT has to be achieved and only specify HOW it is to be achieved where this is deemed absolutely necessary. The more specific the Charter is about the HOW, the more restrictions we place on the CWG to achieve its outcomes. The CWG should be allowed some flexibility to decide its own work processes to suit its members, and also to negotiate and agree its interactions with the ICG. Thanks so much to Chuck for kicking off this discussion in such a helpful way. I have responded with some comments and views below, but I am also planning to go through the document in greater detail in the next day or so to look at language and consistency of terminology. If I have any further suggestions in that regard, I will send on to the whole group. Cheers, Julie On 5 Aug 2014, at 7:42 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Marika. All: Please see my comments below. Chuck From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 10:05 AM To: Jonathan Robinson; Grace Abuhamad; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Version of Charter and Notes from Meeting Dear All, As per Jonathan's email, please find attached a clean and redline version in which we've incorporated the different sections discussed on the mailing list (please let us know if we've missed anything). Also included are some suggested edits to address the comments in relation to the definition of participants / observers / members. Furthermore, I've updated the definition of divergence in section IV which inadvertently seemed to have the definition of consensus. To facilitate the mailing list conversation ahead of the next meeting, we would like to propose that, similar to last week, volunteers come forward to propose specific language to address some of the remaining comments / issues and share their proposals with the mailing list. Looking through the latest version, we've identified the following issues: 1. Should additional language be included to encourage / allow for participation of new stakeholders? (comments #1, 5, 6R5) [Chuck Gomes] I think it is very important for us to include such language. This was a concern that came out of the Netmundial meeting and already there have been questions asked by stakeholders not involved in ICANN how they can participate, not just in naming IANA issues but also IETF, etc. If this is not addressed in the charter and ultimately by the CWG, there is a risk that some will question the validity of the process after we are finished. How about the following: "Procedures and processes for involving participation of stakeholders who are not yet involved in ICANN groups involved in the CWG: a. As soon as a draft charter is approved by the DT for distribution to the chartering organizations for their approval, the chairs of the DT should send a request i. To the chartering organization stakeholder groups, constituencies and other participants requesting that they develop and implement a plan to open their processes to stakeholders who are not yet a part of ICANN processes as applicable and to provide their plan to their respective chartering organization not later than 30 September 2014 ii. To organizations that are not directly a part of the ICANN structure such as ISOC, 1Net and any others that may be able to reach stakeholders that may not be a part of ICANN processes that they consider serving as a channel for such stakeholders to provide input to the CWG and to define their procedures for doing that and communicate those to the co-chairs of the DT not later than 30 September 2014. b. Not later than 7 October 2014, i. The chartering organizations should submit the results of a.i above to the CWG ii. The DT co-chairs should submit the results of a.ii above to the CWG c. Not later than 14 October 2014, staff supporting the CWG should incorporate the results received above into the draft work plan. d. The CWG should edit and approve this part of the work plan not later than 31 October 2014. e. A communication describing the procedures for stakeholders that are not a part of ICANN processes to contribute to the CWG should be prepared and distributed as widely as possible not later than 7 November 2014." [Julie Hammer] My personal feeling is that we should not include any of this detail (a. - e.) in the Charter. First, the Charter should not include anything about processes to do with the DT, only with the CWG itself. Second, as I said in my email opening comment, we should leave it to the CWG to determine how they want to achieve this. Perhaps though, to add the emphasis that Chuck is seeking, the wording could be beefed up as follows: "Procedures and processes for involving to the maximum extent possible participation of stakeholders who are not yet involved in ICANN groups involved in the CWG." [Chuck Gomes] I agree with your premise but I am concerned that if we wait for the CWG to deal with this, we will have lost a lot of time and the procedures for participation by those outside of ICANN will not be facilitated until well after the start of the CWG. I think everything should be done as soon as possible to allow for their participation as early as possible in the CWG. Maybe these steps could be handled in advance but not be part of the charter. 1. Should further guidance be included on how the ICG is expected to liaise with the CWG? (comment #3) [Chuck Gomes] One way to approach this would be for the DT chairs to consult with the CWG chairs and jointly develop language in this regard for the charter. [Julie Hammer] My answer to this question is "No". Again, I think this needs to be left to the CWG to determine in conjunction with the ICG. 1. Should a target deadline be included in the charter for the deliverables in the charter or should this be left up to the CWG to determine? (comment #4)[Chuck Gomes] [Chuck Gomes] I personally think that the CWG should develop its own target deadlines but should do so in coordination with the CWG ICG. [Julie Hammer] Agree, leave this to the CWG. 1. In relation to the sentence "Understand the views and concerns of other participants in the chartering organisation that appoints them" in section III, several comments have been made (#7 - 12). How should this sentence be updated to address the comments made? [Chuck Gomes] How about something like this: "Solicit and communicate the views and concerns of participants in the organization that appoints them." [Julie Hammer] I suggest deleting the words 'participants in' here and simply state "Solicit and communicate the views and concerns of the organization that appoints them." I don't think it is the responsibility of CWG members to present the views of individuals within organizations, unless those views are validated/endorsed by that organization. Should individuals have a strong view that differs from that of their organization, then they can provide that view directly to the CWG as an 'observer', or they can provide a written submission to the CWG or the ICG. However, I am not advocating that we include such wording in the Charter. [Chuck Gomes] It is a well established principle in the GNSO that minority view points should be communicated. If they are individual views, that should be stated. 1. Definition of consensus - it was suggested (comment #14) that a definition of minority should be included or alternatively use the definition 'a position that is supported by at least a supermajority of members'. Is there support for this change or are there other suggestions? [Chuck Gomes] Using a term like 'supermajority' causes a need for voting, which in turn makes it necessary to define how votes will be counted fairly across all the different interest groups and individuals as applicable. It would take a large amount of time to do that, assuming that we could even reach agreement on it. I like the definitions provided by Tijani for full consensus and consensus. I see no need for defining divergence; it would be the absence of consensus. [Julie Hammer] I agree with Chuck's views and with using Tijani's definitions. 1. Assessing consensus and use of vote/poll (comments #15, 16 and 17) - if the DT would like to make reference to the possibility of using polls, you may want to consider including language similar to what is currently in the GNSO WG Guidelines, for example: In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a poll is reasonable to assess the level of support for a recommendation. However, care should be taking in using polls that they do not become votes as there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results. Would there be support for including a reference to the use of polls, and if so, would the proposed language work or are there other suggestions? [Chuck Gomes] I support using the GNSO language or something similar. [Julie Hammer] I agree. 1. Who/how is the final report and possible additional documents (following adoption) submitted to the ICG - should further clarification be added (comment #20, 21) [Chuck Gomes] I think it is fine for the chairs to submit both provisional and final reports to the ICG chairs after approval is confirmed from the chartering organizations. [Julie Hammer] I note that the term 'provisional report' was used by Stephanie in a comment, but as far as I can see, we have not used that term at all in the draft Charter, only Final and Supplemental Papers. However, in relation to the question, I agree with Chuck that the Charter should state that these documents are also submitted to the ICG. 1. Closure of the WG - what additional language should be added to address comments #22 and 23? [Chuck Gomes] How about something like this? "In the event that no consensus is reached by the CWG, the Final Report will document the process that was followed and will be submitted tothe chartering organizations to request possible suggestions for mitigating the issues that are preventing consensus. If consensus can still not be reached, the Final Report will document the processes followed, including requesting suggestions for mitigating the issues that are preventing consensus from the chartering organizations and will be submitted to ICG for their suggestions for mitigating the issues that are preventing consensus. If consensus can still not be reached, request for closing the CWG should be made to the chartering organizations." (I am not terribly comfortable with this but I like it better than simply going straight to closing the CWG.) [Julie Hammer] I agree with Chuck that this is somewhat awkward and will mull it over and try to come up with an alternative for us to consider. If there are any additional issues that need to be addressed, please share those with the mailing list. Also, if you would like to volunteer to address one or more of these issues, please let the mailing list know. Based on the feedback / suggestions provided, staff can try to hold the pen and incorporate any language that has the support of the DT in the next iteration of the draft which will hopefully will get us close to a final version by our next meeting which has been scheduled for next Monday 11 August. [Chuck Gomes] Here are some additional issues that I think need to be addressed by the full DT: 1. Should individuals be allowed to participate directly in the CWG or only as part of a participating group? I favor the latter for efficiency reasons and to simplify determination of consensus as long as representatives from the various groups are required to communicate minority positions from their groups. If personal views are shared, that should be made clear. Chuck, my thinking is that 'individual participating directly in the CWG' = 'observer'. I think that reps from various groups should NOT be required to communicate minority positions from their group, unless the group requires them to do so. I general, I would only see reps presenting the endorsed views of their organization. If individuals within that organization have other views that their organization does not endorse or wish to have presented from the organization, then those individuals can submit their views directly to the CWG as an 'observer', or they can provide a written submission to the CWG or the ICG (see my discussion at 4. above). [Chuck Gomes] I think that would be fine as long as there is opportunity to submit them. 2. Should observers be allowed to contribute directly in CWG deliberations or only literally as just listen-only observers. In the latter case, it may be just as well if they listen to the recordings and/or read transcripts. I thought when we discussed this that our thinking was that observers could contribute their views but would not be included in assessing any consensus. 3. If subgroups are used, would a maximum of 5 participants per group in the CWG make it impossible to have geographic diversity in subgroups? Comment: I am hoping that sub-groups will not ever be required. SSAC is a small group and will probably struggle to find the minimum of 2 reps to participate in the CWG. 4. If the GNSO is limited to a maximum of 5 representatives in the CWG, that would not cover all of its SGs and constituencies. If the ccNSO is limited to a maximum of 5 representatives, that would only allow one per geographic region and possibly no-one from ccTLDs that are not members of the ccNSO? Should the maximum of 5 be reconsidered? Because this will not affect SSAC directly (see comment above), I think it is up to other SO/ACs to decide on this. My only general remark is that whatever the size of the group, it needs to be people who are actually going to DO the work, not just have their names listed. I will also bow to others' experience on the productivity of a very large group. I welcome discussion on all of the above. Thanks, Marika From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> Date: Monday 4 August 2014 10:54 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "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] Latest Version of Charter and Notes from Meeting All, Looking back a week and with our target to complete the draft charter on or shortly a 14 August, it seems sensible to pick up on the actions from last week. Essentially, we have agreed to try to continue to make iterative improvements over the course of this week ahead of meeting for review next week Monday. Please could staff circulate a redline and clean version of the charter as it currently stands, including incorporating the latest edits discussed / agreed on this list but not necessarily incorporated into the draft yet. Once we have this latest version, please could all DT members re-read and consider: A. Your level of comfort with current / latest edits and proposed changes (if any) B. Any changes you wish to propose to the document as it now stands (particularly section III on) Also: * GAC - Do we need to issue any formal note of invitation to join the CWG or should that now wait until we have the Charter in a form we are willing to distribute to all SO & ACs? * Warning of pre-consideration to SO & Acs. Informal routes agreed but supplemented by the record of a formal note from CCWG Co-chairs required. Next meeting is August 11th, 13h00 UTC. 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 Grace Abuhamad Sent: 28 July 2014 21:01 To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Version of Charter and Notes from Meeting Dear All, As discussed during our meeting today, please find attached the latest version of the draft charter. Notes from today's meeting are below and available on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/Qr3hAg Agenda - 28 July 2014 1. Welcome and roll-call 2. Confirmation of meeting notes and action items 3. Timeline Approval of charter and call/appointment of volunteers WG (In order to adopt charter in time, organize membership of the WG itself and have a first full-blown face to face meeting in LA, the draft charter needs to be completed by 14 August, order of approval will be ccNSO (21 August), ALAC (26 August), SSAC (2 September) and GNSO (4 September)). 4. Timelines and coordination with ICG 5. Run-through latest version of draft charter 6. AOB 7. Closure Meeting Notes / Action Items 28/7: * Meeting notes from 21/7 accepted * Byron reached out to GAC chair with reminder and re-invitation to join CWG. Action: Follow up next week for further suggestion regarding GAC participation in CWG * Add to agenda for meeting: resourcing; Root Zone maintainer; public consultation. o Resourcing was not discussed: defer for 4 August o Public Consultation - partly addressed in Timeline overview (Item 4 on the agenda) Timeline * Who will forewarn SSAC, and other groups, to allow pre-consideration - Action: Pre-warning by members and formal documentation by chairs of the convening SOs (Byron and Jonathan) to invite the SOs and ACs as well. Rationale: documentation of process. * Linking to Accountability process: to date the timeline and activities of the Accountability Process are not defined enough in detail to map them against the IANA Stewardship Transition Process. Action: Staff to evolve timeline with Accountability process when that information becomes available. Action: Share timelines with staff (Bart). Discussion draft charter * Comment 1: General agreement of attendees that goal is that WG will deliver a single proposal, while recognizing more then one could evolve, with aim to get to one proposal through iterative process. Action: Wordsmith language - volunteers for capturing language on "single proposal": Julie, Leon, and Allan * Highlighted phrase to .INT deleted * Language on Root Zone Maintaining process: re-focus on role of NTIA in Root Zone maintainer process. Action: Avri and Chuck to propose language to the group. Group aware of Chuck's role and no objection. * Relation with Accountability Process: Avri's comment related to ICG language acceptable to all and will be included. * Start with Section III next week (4 August). _______________________________________________ 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