Statement by JNC on IANA transition
With my ICG member hat on, I am conveying a comment we received to this group, at their request http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
Milton, I personally think it would be much better if the ICG encouraged the JNC to have a representative participate in the IANA CWG rather than forward a very long and generic document to the CWG and expect those who are committing long hours of time already taking additional long hours to decipher the JNC comments and trying to fit them in to CWG work. If they had a representative on the CWG as participant, that person could better express JNC positions than any of us could and would be allowed to participate fully except when it comes to directly deciding consensus. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:54 AM To: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition With my ICG member hat on, I am conveying a comment we received to this group, at their request http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, He was encouraged to join the list by several of us. But he found the conditions in the charter unacceptable and has opted for this alternate path, as provided by the ICG. avri On 10-Nov-14 18:48, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Milton,
I personally think it would be much better if the ICG encouraged the JNC to have a representative participate in the IANA CWG rather than forward a very long and generic document to the CWG and expect those who are committing long hours of time already taking additional long hours to decipher the JNC comments and trying to fit them in to CWG work. If they had a representative on the CWG as participant, that person could better express JNC positions than any of us could and would be allowed to participate fully except when it comes to directly deciding consensus.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:54 AM To: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition
With my ICG member hat on, I am conveying a comment we received to this group, at their request http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html
Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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 guess I question whether he should have been given that option. It is not fair to have others who are volunteers and already overworked do his work. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:36 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition Hi, He was encouraged to join the list by several of us. But he found the conditions in the charter unacceptable and has opted for this alternate path, as provided by the ICG. avri On 10-Nov-14 18:48, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Milton, I personally think it would be much better if the ICG encouraged the JNC to have a representative participate in the IANA CWG rather than forward a very long and generic document to the CWG and expect those who are committing long hours of time already taking additional long hours to decipher the JNC comments and trying to fit them in to CWG work. If they had a representative on the CWG as participant, that person could better express JNC positions than any of us could and would be allowed to participate fully except when it comes to directly deciding consensus. Chuck -----Original Message----- 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: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:54 AM To: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition With my ICG member hat on, I am conveying a comment we received to this group, at their request http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Chuck, I think Richard's objection is a fair criticism of the process adopted by the names community. His objection is with respect to the two classes of participants in the CWG wherein consensus (and now financial resources for the F2Fs) is only limited to members, which come from the chartering organisations. Therefore, in his opinion, the process is not truly open to the global multi-stakeholder community. Renaming observers to participants does not address his concerns. Read forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00014.html and forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html and forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00013.html There are many different variants and definitions of "multi-stakeholder" and therefore neither of the two opinions can be said to be right or wrong. I think it is unfair to say that he shouldn't have been encouraged to participate in the CWG (or given that option as you call it). He has been extremely active in the IETF working group and on the CRISP list. He is providing valuable input to the other two communities, which this community is now missing out on. We should respect the alternate path (via ICG) that he has adopted and should consider his comments seriously. Regards, Guru On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I guess I question whether he should have been given that option. It is not fair to have others who are volunteers and already overworked do his work.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2014 9:36 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition
Hi,
He was encouraged to join the list by several of us. But he found the conditions in the charter unacceptable and has opted for this alternate path, as provided by the ICG.
avri
On 10-Nov-14 18:48, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Milton,
I personally think it would be much better if the ICG encouraged the JNC to have a representative participate in the IANA CWG rather than forward a very long and generic document to the CWG and expect those who are committing long hours of time already taking additional long hours to decipher the JNC comments and trying to fit them in to CWG work. If they had a representative on the CWG as participant, that person could better express JNC positions than any of us could and would be allowed to participate fully except when it comes to directly deciding consensus.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:54 AM
To: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org'
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition
With my ICG member hat on, I am conveying a comment we received to this group, at their request
http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html
Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Guru, Are you willing and do you have the time to represent JNC’s viewpoint? Someone will have to do that for him if he isn’t willing to do it himself. If you are willing, will you be able to do it as well as he could? If so, that could work, but if you cannot do that, who will? I am just a participant but I haven’t let that limit my activity in the CWG. It is incumbent upon me to be able to support my positions sufficiently to convince others to modify their positions; if I do not, then they will not support ideas that I support. If I do, then I can possibly have an influence on the ultimate recommendations whether I can officially participate in the determination of consensus levels or not. The concern about members v. participants is based on the assumption that voting will be used to determine the final level of consensus. If the CWG follows the procedures in the charter, the CWG will continue to deliberate until there is strong support from most participants without resorting to a vote of members; besides members will involve the groups they represent in any positions they take and should also take into consideration the views expressed by those in the CWG that are different, and especially if they are well reasoned. Chuck From: Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:55 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition Chuck, I think Richard's objection is a fair criticism of the process adopted by the names community. His objection is with respect to the two classes of participants in the CWG wherein consensus (and now financial resources for the F2Fs) is only limited to members, which come from the chartering organisations. Therefore, in his opinion, the process is not truly open to the global multi-stakeholder community. Renaming observers to participants does not address his concerns. Read forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00014.html<http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00014.html> and forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html<http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html> and forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00013.html<http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00013.html> There are many different variants and definitions of "multi-stakeholder" and therefore neither of the two opinions can be said to be right or wrong. I think it is unfair to say that he shouldn't have been encouraged to participate in the CWG (or given that option as you call it). He has been extremely active in the IETF working group and on the CRISP list. He is providing valuable input to the other two communities, which this community is now missing out on. We should respect the alternate path (via ICG) that he has adopted and should consider his comments seriously. Regards, Guru On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I guess I question whether he should have been given that option. It is not fair to have others who are volunteers and already overworked do his work. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:36 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition Hi, He was encouraged to join the list by several of us. But he found the conditions in the charter unacceptable and has opted for this alternate path, as provided by the ICG. avri On 10-Nov-14 18:48, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Milton, I personally think it would be much better if the ICG encouraged the JNC to have a representative participate in the IANA CWG rather than forward a very long and generic document to the CWG and expect those who are committing long hours of time already taking additional long hours to decipher the JNC comments and trying to fit them in to CWG work. If they had a representative on the CWG as participant, that person could better express JNC positions than any of us could and would be allowed to participate fully except when it comes to directly deciding consensus. Chuck -----Original Message----- 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: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:54 AM To: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition With my ICG member hat on, I am conveying a comment we received to this group, at their request http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Actually, the process set forth by the ICG has been invoked improperly in this case. ICG's RFP says the following, as quoted by Mr. Hill himself. It contemplates comments directly to the ICG in 3 instances: Section 1 of that Request for Proposals states "some parties may choose to provide comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICGs own processes. Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time via email to icg-forum@xxxxxxxxx." This document is not "about specific aspects of particular proposals," since no particular proposals exist yet. It is not "about the community processes," nor is it "about the ICG's own processes." That is not to say that we should ignore this submission. But it should not be characterized as following a path provided by the ICG. Rather, Mr. Hill (or the Just Net Coalition as whole) is blazing his/its own path. Unfortunately, the path they chose is also based on a second false premise, which is a basic misunderstanding about how Working Groups work and how proposals ultimately considered for adoption get created. I think Chuck has summarized it quite nicely, both by word and by deed. Some of the others most active in our work have also been Participants rather than Members. Mr. Hill has chosen not to participate. By doing so, he has absented himself from the dialogue, the give-and-take, the development of proposals -- the dialogue. Instead he, or the Just Net Coalition have chosen to deliver a monologue. I have read the document, and I will do so again, and I will give thought to what it says. But no Member or Participant should be expected to "carry the water" for this document and represent its points of view by proxy. With my coordinator hat on, I will take notice of it and do what I can under the circumstances to put ideas and positions from it into the stream of discussion. But these ideas and positions would be more likely to make a real contribution if someone engaged in the work of the Working Group was doing what Chuck so succinctly described. Greg On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Guru,
Are you willing and do you have the time to represent JNC’s viewpoint? Someone will have to do that for him if he isn’t willing to do it himself. If you are willing, will you be able to do it as well as he could? If so, that could work, but if you cannot do that, who will?
I am just a participant but I haven’t let that limit my activity in the CWG. It is incumbent upon me to be able to support my positions sufficiently to convince others to modify their positions; if I do not, then they will not support ideas that I support. If I do, then I can possibly have an influence on the ultimate recommendations whether I can officially participate in the determination of consensus levels or not.
The concern about members v. participants is based on the assumption that voting will be used to determine the final level of consensus. If the CWG follows the procedures in the charter, the CWG will continue to deliberate until there is strong support from most participants without resorting to a vote of members; besides members will involve the groups they represent in any positions they take and should also take into consideration the views expressed by those in the CWG that are different, and especially if they are well reasoned.
Chuck
*From:* Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2014 10:55 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition
Chuck,
I think Richard's objection is a fair criticism of the process adopted by the names community. His objection is with respect to the two classes of participants in the CWG wherein consensus (and now financial resources for the F2Fs) is only limited to members, which come from the chartering organisations. Therefore, in his opinion, the process is not truly open to the global multi-stakeholder community. Renaming observers to participants does not address his concerns.
Read
forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00014.html and
forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html and
forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00013.html
There are many different variants and definitions of "multi-stakeholder" and therefore neither of the two opinions can be said to be right or wrong.
I think it is unfair to say that he shouldn't have been encouraged to participate in the CWG (or given that option as you call it). He has been extremely active in the IETF working group and on the CRISP list. He is providing valuable input to the other two communities, which this community is now missing out on.
We should respect the alternate path (via ICG) that he has adopted and should consider his comments seriously.
Regards,
Guru
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I guess I question whether he should have been given that option. It is not fair to have others who are volunteers and already overworked do his work.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2014 9:36 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition
Hi,
He was encouraged to join the list by several of us. But he found the conditions in the charter unacceptable and has opted for this alternate path, as provided by the ICG.
avri
On 10-Nov-14 18:48, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Milton,
I personally think it would be much better if the ICG encouraged the JNC to have a representative participate in the IANA CWG rather than forward a very long and generic document to the CWG and expect those who are committing long hours of time already taking additional long hours to decipher the JNC comments and trying to fit them in to CWG work. If they had a representative on the CWG as participant, that person could better express JNC positions than any of us could and would be allowed to participate fully except when it comes to directly deciding consensus.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:54 AM
To: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org'
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition
With my ICG member hat on, I am conveying a comment we received to this group, at their request
http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html
Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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
Hi, I agree in one part, the way this was structured by IGC seems bonkers*, but we are stuck with it. On the other part it think it is our problem to deal with issues wherever they come from. One way to use this might be to test against it. For example it contains principles, how does it test against the principles we are establishing? Also in reading it, I wonder how may of the ideas have not already expressed by one or the other of us. In any case, all sorts of things might have been better in this process (let me count the ways), but I think these are early comments we just need to deal with. avri * crazy On 10-Nov-14 22:12, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I guess I question whether he should have been given that option. It is not fair to have others who are volunteers and already overworked do his work.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:36 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition
Hi,
He was encouraged to join the list by several of us. But he found the conditions in the charter unacceptable and has opted for this alternate path, as provided by the ICG.
avri On 10-Nov-14 18:48, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Milton,
I personally think it would be much better if the ICG encouraged the JNC to have a representative participate in the IANA CWG rather than forward a very long and generic document to the CWG and expect those who are committing long hours of time already taking additional long hours to decipher the JNC comments and trying to fit them in to CWG work. If they had a representative on the CWG as participant, that person could better express JNC positions than any of us could and would be allowed to participate fully except when it comes to directly deciding consensus.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
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: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:54 AM
To: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>'
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition
With my ICG member hat on, I am conveying a comment we received to this group, at their request
http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html
Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Guru Acharya -
Milton L Mueller