I have no problem with deleting them but if they are in there they should be labeled. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 1:32 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore I believe the annexes should be deleted. We shouldn't overplay the statistical validity of these charts, which were really intended to be internal working tools. They are way too abbreviated to be useful to the reader and will be easily misinterpreted without significant explanation, which is not the point of this document. The high points have already been made in the narrative of the document. Greg On Sunday, February 1, 2015, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: This is looking very good to me. I have just one question: Wouldn’t it be a good idea to refer to the two annexes in the primary body of the document? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 12:41 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline. Questions and comments welcome. Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work. Cheers. B. -- Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>

This is an open point, at best. I (among others) believe that "mandatory RFPs" are a bad idea. On Sunday, February 1, 2015, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:

Bernard:

Thank you for generating this document.

I suggest to add, in the Overview of the Contract Co. Model/Authority section (page 7), the fact that Contract Co will generate RFPs to look for other operators every X number of years as part of their mandate.

-ed

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','turcotte.bernard@gmail.com');>> wrote:

...

All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline.

Questions and comments welcome.

Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work.

Cheers.

B.

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

Hi, On 02-Feb-15 00:07, Milton L Mueller wrote:

The first point you make in this report, which apparently was drafted by ICANN staff, is “Overall there was very strong support for the current IANA operator (ICANN) and that the IANA functions should not be moved from ICANN, or tendered for, at the onset of the transition.” Taken out of context, this statement makes it seem as if there is little support for separability.

And yet what is says appears true as it stands, no mater who wrote it. I think the misapprehension some might get could be fixed by adding a clause at the begining that says While separability has been supported as a basic principle of the process, and is supported by a most of the participants, overal there is .... I was traveling when this came out am still reading the report and will add my personal views on the report later in the day. At this point I should emphasise that these reviews will all be personal and will not be an NCSG position - I do not think we have time to reach such a consensus even among the our smaller tracking group in the next day. If perchance we do, I will inform the list of that condition. avri avri

I agree with Avri on this - the notion of separability has to be underlined as common to both models. And, since this is a key element in the CWG discussions, principles and draft solutions , I think we should formulate a question to the community about the importance of separability, that is if an all internal solution creates enough separation and independent oversight and review. Elise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Avri Doria Sendt: 2. februar 2015 09:21 Til: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore Hi, One to the comments I would make is that the notion of separability, the ability to remove the IANA function from ICANN without necessarily separating the function from ICANN at this time, is common to both solutions as it is contained in the principles and both solutions allow for this, though in a different manner (contract co vs. so-called nuclear options). I beleive it should get a point in the " Common points between the two models " avri On 02-Feb-15 07:47, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, On 02-Feb-15 00:07, Milton L Mueller wrote: The first point you make in this report, which apparently was drafted by ICANN staff, is "Overall there was very strong support for the current IANA operator (ICANN) and that the IANA functions should not be moved from ICANN, or tendered for, at the onset of the transition." Taken out of context, this statement makes it seem as if there is little support for separability. And yet what is says appears true as it stands, no mater who wrote it. I think the misapprehension some might get could be fixed by adding a clause at the begining that says While separability has been supported as a basic principle of the process, and is supported by a most of the participants, overal there is .... I was traveling when this came out am still reading the report and will add my personal views on the report later in the day. At this point I should emphasise that these reviews will all be personal and will not be an NCSG position - I do not think we have time to reach such a consensus even among the our smaller tracking group in the next day. If perchance we do, I will inform the list of that condition. avri avri _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

No problem with this. Alan At 02/02/2015 03:20 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

One to the comments I would make is that the notion of separability, the ability to remove the IANA function from ICANN without necessarily separating the function from ICANN at this time, is common to both solutions as it is contained in the principles and both solutions allow for this, though in a different manner (contract co vs. so-called nuclear options). I beleive it should get a point in the " Common points between the two models "

avri

On 02-Feb-15 07:47, Avri Doria wrote:

...

Hi,

On 02-Feb-15 00:07, Milton L Mueller wrote:

...

The first point you make in this report, which apparently was drafted by ICANN staff, is "Overall there was very strong support for the current IANA operator (ICANN) and that the IANA functions should not be moved from ICANN, or tendered for, at the onset of the transition." Taken out of context, this statement makes it seem as if there is little support for separability.

And yet what is says appears true as it stands, no mater who wrote it.

I think the misapprehension some might get could be fixed by adding a clause at the begining that says While separability has been supported as a basic principle of the process, and is supported by a most of the participants, overal there is ....

I was traveling when this came out am still reading the report and will add my personal views on the report later in the day. At this point I should emphasise that these reviews will all be personal and will not be an NCSG position - I do not think we have time to reach such a consensus even among the our smaller tracking group in the next day. If perchance we do, I will inform the list of that condition.

avri

avri

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

I agree with Milton that this document should be as neutral as possible with regard to the various options and I thought it was close to achieving that. In fact, an earlier version included the pros and cons of each of the options and I suggested those be removed so that community members could make their own judgments without CWG influence. To address Milton’s concern, I am now more inclined not to include the results of the surveys but rather just provide links to the results. Besides, we were very clear that the surveys were not intended to be statistically significant so we should avoid impressions that we are using the results as if they were. I think they were very helpful in guiding our review of public comments within the CWG, but we need to avoid not reading too much from the results. In my opinion, the main objective of the discussion document is to generate productive feedback in Singapore that will contribute to our efforts going forward. We all need legal advice and a lot of more detail before we can make conclusive value judgments on the way forward so I don’t think we gain much by trying to assess which proposals community members like best, but if we can get them to identify any concerns they have about the options on the table, I think that could be useful. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 6:07 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Lise Fuhr Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore Jonathan, Lise I am sorry to say that I find this draft report to be slanted to an outrageous degree. Its summary of the public comments and the survey results seem to be distorted in ways that lead the community to a particular view. This report will have to change, and dramatically, before it is fit for public release. The first point you make in this report, which apparently was drafted by ICANN staff, is “Overall there was very strong support for the current IANA operator (ICANN) and that the IANA functions should not be moved from ICANN, or tendered for, at the onset of the transition.” Taken out of context, this statement makes it seem as if there is little support for separability. By our count, more than 2/3 of the public comments supported separability of the IANA functions, and separability was one of the key principles adopted by the group at the outset. Moreover, around 63% of the public comments supported the basic idea of the Frankfurt proposal, i.e. to create some kind of external authority to contract for those functions. Even by Bernard’s method, 13 of the public comments opposed Contract Co. and 18 supported it (a 58% ratio in favor of Contract Co) while 24 allegedly made no comment (one of the flaws of Bernard’s method of counting, but that is a minor issue at this point). The report says that “There was no strong agreement amongst survey respondents with the proposal to create Contract Co.,” which is roughly true, but it doesn’t also say “There was no strong agreement amongst survey respondents, indeed there was strong opposition, to the idea of an internal option.” What accounts for this bias? The simple fact is that we are currently split between advocates of an internal solution and an external solution. Neither can claim consensus and one-sided references to “a majority” (of 2 votes in a survey that included only 32 people) is not helpful. The key survey questions on the basic issue are all bimodal, with no clear tendency either way. I have no problem with a clear statement to that effect, or even a summary of what arguments people have made supporting or opposing either option. I presume the purpose of this report is to inform the community in Singapore of this fact in an attempt to find proposals that can move the process forward. A prejudiced report is going to make that more difficult. Furthermore, it is a huge mistake to frame this as a kind of opinion poll at the Singapore meeting as to where people stand now (especially when they are presented with a highly distorted take on how current opinions break down). What we need now now is not polling but deliberation and discussion as to the merits and demerits of various structures, legal advice on the feasibility of both internal and external tracks, and exploration of any options that we haven’t thought of yet. If you want help modifying the report I’d be happy to provide you with suggestions. Overall, it can be made a lot shorter and a lot simpler. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2015 3:22 PM To: 'Bernard Turcotte'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore All, To set expectations and remind one another of the purpose of this Discussion Document and of this draft. The overarching purpose is as described at the outset of the document as follows: 1. To inform the community of the work undertaken and progress to date and 2. To seek community input on key and intractable issues in order to assist the CWG in its deliberations In order to achieve both 1 & 2 above, it is imperative to get the document into circulation within the community as soon as possible. With the publication of this draft to the CWG, we aim to obtain the following from the you: A. Input on areas of substantial concern with the document as drafted and B. Input as to which questions should be added to the document in order to best direct community input with regard to purpose 2 above. Accordingly, please can you provide any input as soon as possible and, in any event, by 48 hours from distribution of this document to the CWG i.e. 18h00 UTC on 03 February 2015. Thank-you. Jonathan & Lise Co-chairs From: Bernard Turcotte [mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com] Sent: 01 February 2015 17:41 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline. Questions and comments welcome. Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work. Cheers. B.

+1 I think a second look at the neutrality of the phrasing needs to be considered, the CWG is not ruling any option in or out at this point and the statement needs to reflect that and no show any bias in either direction until that route has been decided by the consensus of the CWG. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 3:06 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Milton L Mueller; jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Lise Fuhr Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore + 1 Chuck and echoing many of Milton's concerns. Some of the wording in the introductory section also gave me pause. For example: with a section added on an "Internal-to-ICANN" solution as a replacement f[CS1] or the "Contract Co. option - I would have thought this should read "additional/alternative option" not "a replacement for the ContractCo option". Another example is where it says "There is not enough support for the Contract Co. option at this time to allow the CWG to continue developing only this option." I don't recall this being a CWG conclusion - rather members/participants of the CWG proposed adding additional models/options which was welcomed. We need to be very careful in the phrasing. ________________________________ [CS1]

As Chuck, I thought the document reasonably neutral. While I’m not wedded to the annexes, they do help show where there was – and where there was not – some semblance of consensus. This is a useful reminder to us all as a “how did we get to where we are,” not least because it helps us to focus on understanding, and responding to, concerns: this is a vital step if we are to build a consensus proposal. Obviously there should be a reference to the complete survey, but pointing to the complete surveys is hardly helpful to people who have not really been following the detail. Bearing in mind that we are hoping to use the document to improve awareness and to stimulate discussion, highlighting some of the issues we have been wrestling with since Christmas could be quite a useful approach. I’d agree with Chuck’s final paragraph: if we can come away understanding the hopes and fears elicited by each of the approaches, this will be useful – or even being optimistic, could mark a good step forward. Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 02 February 2015 13:56 To: Milton L Mueller; jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; lisefuhrforwader Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore I agree with Milton that this document should be as neutral as possible with regard to the various options and I thought it was close to achieving that. In fact, an earlier version included the pros and cons of each of the options and I suggested those be removed so that community members could make their own judgments without CWG influence. To address Milton’s concern, I am now more inclined not to include the results of the surveys but rather just provide links to the results. Besides, we were very clear that the surveys were not intended to be statistically significant so we should avoid impressions that we are using the results as if they were. I think they were very helpful in guiding our review of public comments within the CWG, but we need to avoid not reading too much from the results. In my opinion, the main objective of the discussion document is to generate productive feedback in Singapore that will contribute to our efforts going forward. We all need legal advice and a lot of more detail before we can make conclusive value judgments on the way forward so I don’t think we gain much by trying to assess which proposals community members like best, but if we can get them to identify any concerns they have about the options on the table, I think that could be useful. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 6:07 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Lise Fuhr Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore Jonathan, Lise I am sorry to say that I find this draft report to be slanted to an outrageous degree. Its summary of the public comments and the survey results seem to be distorted in ways that lead the community to a particular view. This report will have to change, and dramatically, before it is fit for public release. The first point you make in this report, which apparently was drafted by ICANN staff, is “Overall there was very strong support for the current IANA operator (ICANN) and that the IANA functions should not be moved from ICANN, or tendered for, at the onset of the transition.” Taken out of context, this statement makes it seem as if there is little support for separability. By our count, more than 2/3 of the public comments supported separability of the IANA functions, and separability was one of the key principles adopted by the group at the outset. Moreover, around 63% of the public comments supported the basic idea of the Frankfurt proposal, i.e. to create some kind of external authority to contract for those functions. Even by Bernard’s method, 13 of the public comments opposed Contract Co. and 18 supported it (a 58% ratio in favor of Contract Co) while 24 allegedly made no comment (one of the flaws of Bernard’s method of counting, but that is a minor issue at this point). The report says that “There was no strong agreement amongst survey respondents with the proposal to create Contract Co.,” which is roughly true, but it doesn’t also say “There was no strong agreement amongst survey respondents, indeed there was strong opposition, to the idea of an internal option.” What accounts for this bias? The simple fact is that we are currently split between advocates of an internal solution and an external solution. Neither can claim consensus and one-sided references to “a majority” (of 2 votes in a survey that included only 32 people) is not helpful. The key survey questions on the basic issue are all bimodal, with no clear tendency either way. I have no problem with a clear statement to that effect, or even a summary of what arguments people have made supporting or opposing either option. I presume the purpose of this report is to inform the community in Singapore of this fact in an attempt to find proposals that can move the process forward. A prejudiced report is going to make that more difficult. Furthermore, it is a huge mistake to frame this as a kind of opinion poll at the Singapore meeting as to where people stand now (especially when they are presented with a highly distorted take on how current opinions break down). What we need now now is not polling but deliberation and discussion as to the merits and demerits of various structures, legal advice on the feasibility of both internal and external tracks, and exploration of any options that we haven’t thought of yet. If you want help modifying the report I’d be happy to provide you with suggestions. Overall, it can be made a lot shorter and a lot simpler. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2015 3:22 PM To: 'Bernard Turcotte'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore All, To set expectations and remind one another of the purpose of this Discussion Document and of this draft. The overarching purpose is as described at the outset of the document as follows: 1. To inform the community of the work undertaken and progress to date and 2. To seek community input on key and intractable issues in order to assist the CWG in its deliberations In order to achieve both 1 & 2 above, it is imperative to get the document into circulation within the community as soon as possible. With the publication of this draft to the CWG, we aim to obtain the following from the you: A. Input on areas of substantial concern with the document as drafted and B. Input as to which questions should be added to the document in order to best direct community input with regard to purpose 2 above. Accordingly, please can you provide any input as soon as possible and, in any event, by 48 hours from distribution of this document to the CWG i.e. 18h00 UTC on 03 February 2015. Thank-you. Jonathan & Lise Co-chairs From: Bernard Turcotte [mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com] Sent: 01 February 2015 17:41 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline. Questions and comments welcome. Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work. Cheers. B.

Hi, I agree about the neutrality of the document. I think a few minor wording changes should be able to fix the various interpretaions of bias. Words are like that, some words that seem fine to some of us, may appear biased to others - there is a cultural aspect to that as well. As for the Annex, the problem I have is that we are acting like an informal survey has statistical validity. I have no problm with the info being included for report completeness as they were significant milestones in our labors, but there needs to be a major disclaimer about them being non scientific and signifying nothing more that having been a conveneint work tool for giving the conversation shape. And there needs to be references to the full data set for those who want to dig further. avri On 02-Feb-15 17:05, Martin Boyle wrote:

As Chuck, I thought the document reasonably neutral.

While I’m not wedded to the annexes, they do help show where there was – and where there was not – some semblance of consensus. This is a useful reminder to us all as a “how did we get to where we are,” not least because it helps us to focus on understanding, and responding to, concerns: this is a vital step if we are to build a consensus proposal.

Obviously there should be a reference to the complete survey, but pointing to the complete surveys is hardly helpful to people who have not really been following the detail. Bearing in mind that we are hoping to use the document to improve awareness and to stimulate discussion, highlighting some of the issues we have been wrestling with since Christmas could be quite a useful approach.

I’d agree with Chuck’s final paragraph: if we can come away understanding the hopes and fears elicited by each of the approaches, this will be useful – or even being optimistic, could mark a good step forward.

Martin

*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* 02 February 2015 13:56 *To:* Milton L Mueller; jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; lisefuhrforwader *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

I agree with Milton that this document should be as neutral as possible with regard to the various options and I thought it was close to achieving that. In fact, an earlier version included the pros and cons of each of the options and I suggested those be removed so that community members could make their own judgments without CWG influence. To address Milton’s concern, I am now more inclined not to include the results of the surveys but rather just provide links to the results. Besides, we were very clear that the surveys were not intended to be statistically significant so we should avoid impressions that we are using the results as if they were. I think they were very helpful in guiding our review of public comments within the CWG, but we need to avoid not reading too much from the results.

In my opinion, the main objective of the discussion document is to generate productive feedback in Singapore that will contribute to our efforts going forward. We all need legal advice and a lot of more detail before we can make conclusive value judgments on the way forward so I don’t think we gain much by trying to assess which proposals community members like best, but if we can get them to identify any concerns they have about the options on the table, I think that could be useful.

Chuck

*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller *Sent:* Sunday, February 01, 2015 6:07 PM *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Lise Fuhr *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

Jonathan, Lise

I am sorry to say that I find this draft report to be slanted to an outrageous degree. Its summary of the public comments and the survey results seem to be distorted in ways that lead the community to a particular view. This report will have to change, and dramatically, before it is fit for public release.

The first point you make in this report, which apparently was drafted by ICANN staff, is “Overall there was very strong support for the current IANA operator (ICANN) and that the IANA functions should not be moved from ICANN, or tendered for, at the onset of the transition.” Taken out of context, this statement makes it seem as if there is little support for separability.

By our count, more than 2/3 of the public comments supported separability of the IANA functions, and separability was one of the key principles adopted by the group at the outset. Moreover, around 63% of the public comments supported the basic idea of the Frankfurt proposal, i.e. to create some kind of external authority to contract for those functions.

Even by Bernard’s method, 13 of the public comments opposed Contract Co. and 18 supported it (a 58% ratio in favor of Contract Co) while 24 allegedly made no comment (one of the flaws of Bernard’s method of counting, but that is a minor issue at this point).

The report says that “There was no strong agreement amongst survey respondents with the proposal to create Contract Co.,” which is roughly true, but it doesn’t also say “There was no strong agreement amongst survey respondents, indeed there was strong opposition, to the idea of an internal option.” What accounts for this bias?

The simple fact is that we are currently split between advocates of an internal solution and an external solution. Neither can claim consensus and one-sided references to “a majority” (of 2 votes in a survey that included only 32 people) is not helpful. The key survey questions on the basic issue are all bimodal, with no clear tendency either way. I have no problem with a clear statement to that effect, or even a summary of what arguments people have made supporting or opposing either option. I presume the purpose of this report is to inform the community in Singapore of this fact in an attempt to find proposals that can move the process forward.

A prejudiced report is going to make that more difficult. Furthermore, it is a huge mistake to frame this as a kind of opinion poll at the Singapore meeting as to where people stand now (especially when they are presented with a highly distorted take on how current opinions break down). What we need now now is not polling but deliberation and discussion as to the merits and demerits of various structures, legal advice on the feasibility of both internal and external tracks, and exploration of any options that we haven’t thought of yet.

If you want help modifying the report I’d be happy to provide you with suggestions. Overall, it can be made a lot shorter and a lot simpler.

Milton L Mueller

Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor

Syracuse University School of Information Studies

http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/

Internet Governance Project

http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>

*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Sunday, February 1, 2015 3:22 PM *To:* 'Bernard Turcotte'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

All,

To set expectations and remind one another of the purpose of this Discussion Document and of this draft.

The overarching purpose is as described at the outset of the document as follows:

1. To inform the community of the work undertaken and progress to date

and

2. To seek community input on key and intractable issues in order to assist the CWG in its deliberations

In order to achieve both 1 & 2 above, it is imperative to get the document into circulation within the community as soon as possible.

With the publication of this draft to the CWG, we aim to obtain the following from the you:

A. Input on areas of substantial concern with the document as drafted

and

B. Input as to which questions should be added to the document in order to best direct community input with regard to purpose 2 above.

Accordingly, please can you provide any input as soon as possible and, in any event, by 48 hours from distribution of this document to the CWG i.e. 18h00 UTC on 03 February 2015.

Thank-you.

Jonathan & Lise

Co-chairs

*From:*Bernard Turcotte [mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com] *Sent:* 01 February 2015 17:41 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline.

Questions and comments welcome.

Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work.

Cheers.

B.

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Paul, I do not personally think that the discussion document should include the pros and cons of the each of the options because I think it might be better to let the community evaluate them on their own without CWG influence. At the same time I fully recognize that the CWG and the community will have to extensively examine the pros and cons going forward after we get legal advice and have more details developed. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Szyndler Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 9:17 PM To: Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore Dear Bernie, Jonathan, Lise and all. Thank you for your work on this. I am happy to see all three proposed models receiving equal representation in the document. I note from the versioning of the report (v3.2) that this has been an iterative process with a significant number of changes being made along the way. Following these changes, a few of the key tenets behind both the Golden bylaw and Trust proposals have been omitted or altered and I believe it is appropriate to restate our original ideas and the thinking behind them. The first point is one of context. The Golden bylaw model was auDA’s first attempt to develop an alternative to Contract Co. We felt this was necessary not only because we believe in an internal-to-ICANN model, but also wanted to help facilitate a balanced discussion on all possible options. In acknowledgement of some community members’ vehement opposition to a completely internal model, we proposed the establishment of a trust that would place binding obligations on the Board and empower the stakeholder community to make future changes. On the continuum of external-to-internal solutions, we believe this is a step towards middle ground and are willing to discuss both as realistic alternatives to Contract Co. On the draft report itself: · The description of the Golden Bylaw model, though considerably condensed, still reflects a number of the principles behind our proposal. However, the comment “Separation could possibly require the creation of Contract Co. or a trust” was not in our original document. This may well hold true but would require further discussion. · Further on separation: The initiation of a process that may lead to separation of IANA from ICANN could only be initiated by the MRT. The support of the SOs and ACs to take action is a critical, not optional stage of the process. · The Golden Bylaw summary notes our proposed “flattening” of the structure, but this proposal was made not just to minimise costs and resources, but to streamline the effectiveness of the model to the maximum extent possible, while maintaining appropriate levels of accountability. · The summary of the Trust model is better presented, though there is one significant omission. The auDA proposal always envisaged three catalysts that could trigger significant change to the management of the IANA function. Systemic failings as identified by regular reviews and urgent out-of-cycle failings (such as gross negligence or financial failure) have been retained. However, we also envisage that significant levels of community petitioning could trigger the process. This has been dropped from the current draft. To be clear, such petitioning would need to be broadly supported. It would not be appropriate for one SO or AC to initiate it. While details could be debated, we originally proposed a supermajority vote within two SOs/ACs could be a suitable minimum. Note that this is simply the process to trigger a review and possible transition. The final action would need the support of a far broader segment of the community. Finally, as a general comment, we note that the benefits, security levels, accountability, costs and legal considerations of each model are not covered in this summary report, though must be considered and discussed with the community as we move forward. Regards, Paul Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs .au Domain Administration Limited T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 E: paul.szyndler@auda.org.au<mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/> Twitter: @auda<http://twitter.com/auda> | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/<http://www.auda.org.au/blog/> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, 2 February 2015 4:41 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline. Questions and comments welcome. Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work. Cheers. B.