Notes and action items from F2F meeting
Dear All, Please find attached the high level notes and action items of Monday¹s F2F meeting (note, action items have also been highlighted below). To review the full transcript and recording of the meeting, please see: http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-naming. The next meeting will be scheduled for Wednesday 22 October at 13.00 UTC for 2 hours (call details will be circulated separately). Best regards, Marika Action items: * CWG members and participants to review the revised timeline <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49357552/CWG%20Draft%20Tim eline%20-%207%20October%202014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1413216722000& api=v2> and provide any additional comments / input on the mailing list. * CWG members and participants to review the ICG Request for Proposals <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-03sep14-en .pdf> * Volunteers to assist Allan in preparing draft language for items 1 and 2 to express their interest on the mailing list * CWG members and participants to review the IANA Functions Contract <https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-01oct12-en.pdf>
Thanks Marika for doing this. Regarding the timeline, as I stated in our in-person meeting in L.A., I have concerns about the feasibility of the next to last step (Adoption by chartering organizations of final transition proposal) being done in 11 days. * As others said in our meeting, the only way that will be possible is if all of us keep the respective groups we represent updated regularly between now and then, including getting their support on an ongoing basis throughout our deliberations on specific elements of our recommendations as they are developed. To ensure that that happens I think it will be important that we build in checkpoints throughout our work where we identify points for which the CWG has reached reasonable agreement and ask members to confirm support by the groups they represent. * Another practical step that may be needed is for the chartering organizations that need a meeting for final approval to make sure that one is scheduled during the 11-day period. * If we do the above, the 11-day period may work. Regarding the action item "Volunteers to assist Allan in preparing draft language for items 1 and 2 to express their interest on the mailing list" I volunteer to assist in that regard and hope to provide some input this weekend. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 8:11 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes and action items from F2F meeting Dear All, Please find attached the high level notes and action items of Monday's F2F meeting (note, action items have also been highlighted below). To review the full transcript and recording of the meeting, please see: http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-naming. The next meeting will be scheduled for Wednesday 22 October at 13.00 UTC for 2 hours (call details will be circulated separately). Best regards, Marika Action items: * CWG members and participants to review the revised timeline<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49357552/CWG%20Draft%20Time...> and provide any additional comments / input on the mailing list. * CWG members and participants to review the ICG Request for Proposals<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-03sep14-en....> * Volunteers to assist Allan in preparing draft language for items 1 and 2 to express their interest on the mailing list * CWG members and participants to review the IANA Functions Contract<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-01oct12-en.pdf>
Chuck Every chartering organization is represented on the CWG. What stops you from having all participants, including people within the so-called chartering organizations, provide public comment on a "last call" proposal at the same time? Why must every organization run a separate process to formally "adopt" a proposal when their representatives are the ones who made the proposal? Why duplicate process? From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Regarding the timeline, as I stated in our in-person meeting in L.A., I have concerns about the feasibility of the next to last step (Adoption by chartering organizations of final transition proposal) being done in 11 days.
Milton, I don't think that relying mostly on public comment periods is a very good approach to the multi-stakeholder model and certainly not very bottom-up. 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. What process do you think would be duplicated? Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 2:09 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: Notes and action items from F2F meeting Chuck Every chartering organization is represented on the CWG. What stops you from having all participants, including people within the so-called chartering organizations, provide public comment on a "last call" proposal at the same time? Why must every organization run a separate process to formally "adopt" a proposal when their representatives are the ones who made the proposal? Why duplicate process? From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Regarding the timeline, as I stated in our in-person meeting in L.A., I have concerns about the feasibility of the next to last step (Adoption by chartering organizations of final transition proposal) being done in 11 days.
From: Gomes, Chuck [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.
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.
Okay i think you both are saying the same thing. Just that Chuck is saying that the "one time approval" from all stakeholders may not happen within the 11days which i think is valid but at this time my response is that we get to that point first and then determine whether to extend or not. Cheers! On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
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]
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.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
participants (4)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Marika Konings -
Milton L Mueller -
Seun Ojedeji