[Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill

[Martin Boyle]

Hi Alissa,

That looks good to me.

On his complaints about this not being a "consensus of the global multi-stakeholder community. Indeed, as I have pointed out previously, CWG-Stewardship is an ICANN group, constituted under ICANN rules, so it cannot be considered to be representative of the global multi-stakeholder community," he does seem to miss the point.  The process was based in ICANN through the chartering organisations and that is hardly surprising given the role of ICANN (and indeed the invitation from NTIA).  However, the process was not closed, and was based around developing consensus - no votes and no sustained opposition on compromises that allowed the CWG to move forward.

And that is probably the key feature supporting your third paragraph:  his views had not really gained significant traction - it was one man's voice.

One specific issue that probably needs to be addressed is his criticism on jurisdiction.  This was discussed.  There was general agreement that there was not enough support for proposing an immediate change of jurisdiction and not enough information on what would be the relevant merits of other jurisdictions and the criteria required from a given jurisdiction.  It was also quite clearly not an issue that needed to be resolved to enable transition (these discussions have been going on for quite a few years within ICANN), but something that could be addressed in subsequent work.

Thanks

Martin




From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: 03 August 2015 16:02
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill

See the mail from Jonathan below. I've quoted below the analysis we previously wrote up but did not send to the CWG. Any objections to sending this back in response to Jonathan's request?

-

Regarding Richard's claim about the final proposal not having gone out for public comment, in our view what he suggests could yield a process that never ends, given that further comments can always be provided whenever a document is put out for public comment. Thus requiring a "final" document to be put out for public comment is an unreasonable requirement for a process intended to terminate.

Regarding his claim about the global multistakeholder community, our understanding of the CWG's charter is that the group is open to any interested participant.


Regarding his claim about his specific comments on the proposal, we note that the CWG proposal states on p. 51 that "The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration." We note that rationales were given and CWG consensus positions explained for each comment received during the public comment period that was not included in the proposal (including Richard's).


--

Thanks,
Alissa

Begin forwarded message:


From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill
Date: July 28, 2015 at 2:54:54 AM PDT
To: "'Alissa Cooper'" <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>, <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Cc: "'Jonathan Robinson'" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>
Reply-To: <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>

Alissa,

Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG.

Jonathan

From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> IANA <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill

CWG,
The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html> According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Community-Comments-Handling-1May15-final.pdf>, the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10.

The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG.

Thanks,
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150803/47cf574b/attachment.html>