Milton, You ended by saying this: "The process of reviewing and approving the proposal that comes out of the CWG. If I understand correctly, you are proposing that this be done for EVERY chartering organization. I am proposing that it be done once or, if there are major areas of dissatisfaction, we go through another cycle or two." The purpose of my proposal was to make it possible for each chartering organization to get approval in the 11 days allowed in the work plan. I think it is very unlikely that all of the chartering organizations can get approval in 11 days if they haven't incrementally kept their groups informed and obtained their feedback all along the way. On the other hand, as was pointed out by others in our in-person CWG meeting, if we are keeping our respective stakeholders informed as we go and getting their feedback, when we get to the end, it might be possible to get approvals in 11 days and it should also reduce the chance that we need more cycles. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 10:46 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: Notes and action items from F2F meeting From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]> CG: I don't think that relying mostly on public comment periods is a very good approach to the multi-stakeholder model MM: Chuck, let's characterize each other's views accurately. I am not proposing to rely mostly on public comment periods to develop the proposal. We have a working group with representatives of each group developing the proposal. I am proposing to rely on open public comment to do the final ratification or check the results of the proposal development, that's all. It's more efficient and it's more open. CG: and certainly not very bottom-up. MM: I don't agree. Giving all participants - via a public comment period - the same status is more bottom up than your proposed method, which privileges a few stakeholder group silos that claim to speak for entire communities. As I understand it, you are saying that any chartering group as a collectivity has veto power. I understand why that view would be popular with the chartering groups and especially the dominant factions within them. But I don't think that it's efficient or more bottom up. CG: Comment periods are useful for checking the results of consensus processes and are very important in that regard, i.e., for a last call as you suggest. But getting broad input at the end seems too late to me. MM: I don't understand this "too late" concept. We will have to get broad input at the end either way, and you claimed that your proposed method means that it is almost impossible to meet the target date. CG: What process do you think would be duplicated? MM: The process of reviewing and approving the proposal that comes out of the CWG. If I understand correctly, you are proposing that this be done for EVERY chartering organization. I am proposing that it be done once or, if there are major areas of dissatisfaction, we go through another cycle or two.