July 2014 - Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Public session at ICANN 51?
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 29, 2014

Sept. 29, 2014

I know you’re all getting tired of emails from me, but I have a question (well, a few questions) … Should the ICG host a public session at ICANN 51, to provide a status update and hear from the community? (My answer: yes.) How long should the session be? 90 minutes? I’m asking now because we need to start working with the ICANN 51 agenda folks if we want to make it happen. Thanks, Alissa

16 27

Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on
by Patrik Fältström Aug. 12, 2014

Aug. 12, 2014

All, I have investigated who are on the mailing list, and also asked ICANN Staff to provide a list of the participants in the ICG work. When I compared the two lists, I found some differences, and the difference is that more people are subscribed to the list than what the lists I received from ICANN contained. This email contain my findings and have 6 decisions/action points at the end. The list I got from ICANN contained four groups of people: A. Members of the ICG B. Liaisons to the ICG (from ICANN Board and IANA) C. Support Staff (from ICANN) D. Other people (on mailing list but not on the list I got from ICANN) The main reason for investigating this is to understand who should get read/write access to our documents. Everyone do get read access of course. When validating these four groups I found out a few things: Group A consists of the following people: ALAC Jean-Jacques Subrenat Mohamed El-Bashir ASO Hartmut Glaser ccNSO Mary Uduma Xiaodong Lee Keith Davidson Martin Boyle GNSO Wolf Ulrich Knoben Milton Mueller James Bladel gTLD Registries Keith Drazek Jon Nevett GAC Heather Dryden Manal Ismail Aratesh Kavouss Michael Niebel Jandyr Santos ICC/BASIS Joseph Alhadeff IAB Russ Housley Lynn St Amour IETF Jari Arkko Alissa Cooper ISOC Narelle Clark Demi Getschko NRO Adiel Akplogan Paul Wilson RSSAC Lars-Johan Liman Daniel Karrenberg SSAC Patrik Fältström Russ Mundy Group B contains: Board Liaison Kuo Wei-Wu Dedicated IANA staff liaison expert Elise Gerich Group C and D is suggested by ICANN to be consolidated and trimmed to the following five people: Theresa Swinehart -- responsible at ICANN for both processes (NTIA IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN accountability). She is on in her role as ICANN being the facilitator of the process. Ergys Ramaj and Alice Jansen -- core support to the Coordination Group to provide whatever is needed to the Coordination group including meeting support, liaising with the interpretation and translation services, meetings team, IT teams, and any other logistical and administrative support. Jim Tengrove, assisted by Hillary Jett, are responsible for ICG-related Communications, including updates to the website. In addition, these four people that are (or have been) subscribed are: Tracy Hackshaw -- interim appointed GAC member, who following the ICG decision to accept all 5 proposed GAC members, was removed from the mailing-list this weekend. Sam Dickinson -- is not ICANN staff, but was engaged and paid for by ICANN for the purposes of the London meeting and any minutes, writing, or other support. Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad which are back-ups to the core contact Team. Now to the issues, with suggested actions where appropriate: 1. Members and liaisons to ICG My conclusion on the process is that there is a difference between members of the ICG and Liaisons. When we need to come to consensus about something, the consensus should be among the members, not members+liaisons. We can solicit advice and opinions from the liaisons, but they should not otherwise be involved in consensus gathering or writing the group’s output. I think it is inappropriate for people who are employed by ICANN or who have fiduciary responsibility to ICANN to be otherwise involved in discussions and decisions about the future of the oversight of one of the ICANN departments. I do understand this was not explicitly discussed in London. Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons). 2. Support staff Until CG have a secretariat in place, I think the current set of staff support (Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary) have proven to work effectively, on our request, and can very well continue to function as the interim secretariat for ICG until further notice. Suggestion: We accept the proposal from ICANN to until further notice from ICG continue with this set of support staff: Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary. 3. Interim appointed GAC member Tracy is now removed from the list as GAC has appointed the five members. Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate. 4. Minutes of our meeting Sam Dickinson has been taking minutes from our first meeting. ICANN has asked ICG whether we do think that was useful and whether we are interested in similar needs in the future. As we have not resolved our ideas with a secretariat yet, and we are still (at least myself) digesting minutes from first meeting, I think having a discussion on future minutes is premature. Suggestion: We postpone discussion on minutes and otherwise record taking of our future meetings to the discussion on the Secretariat. Suggestion: Until minutes from first meeting are complete, Sam Dickingson should be treated as support staff (together with Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary). 5. ICANN backup contacts As noted above, Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad are on the mailing list as backup contacts. ICANN has suggested that as the ICG is now up and running, they are removed from our mailing list and otherwise special treatment compared to other ICANN staff. In fact, they have as far as I understand already been removed from the list already. Suggestion: We support ICANN in this proposal, thanks Jamie and Grace for their ability to help, and I validate the situation that they have been removed from the mailing list and that way got special treatment compared with other ICANN staff. 6. Write access to our documents Everyone is to be given read access to our documents. Question is who should get read/write access. We have a number of alternatives here, and which one we choose depends on what answers we get on the questions above. Alternative A: Members only Today members of ICG do have write access, and update of documents there depends on members doing explicit actions. Alternative B: Members + liaisons To make feedback loop from liaisons easier, we also give write access for liaisons. This do give ability for liaisons to write in documents, which might be preferable for example in the form of change tags in Word documents. Alternative C: Members + Support Staff By letting support staff write to documents members will be relieved from the task of updating documents and otherwise do purely administerial tasks. Alternative D: Members + Liaisons + Support Staff A merge of alternative B and C. In reality it implies (given my suggestion on issue 5 above finds consensus in ICG) that all members of this mailing list do get read/write access to the documents. Suggestion: Alternative D, i.e. all Members, Liaisons and Support Staff get read/write access to our documents.

17 30

Redraft of RFP
by Paul Wilson Aug. 6, 2014

Aug. 6, 2014

Thanks to comments from a few of you, here’s a further draft of the RFP. My feeling is that a very structured approach is needed, and I hope that we can gather all the needed information in this way. From the IP addressing community, I think we could provide a detailed and complete response in this format, but other will need to be able to do so too. I hope this is useful. Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38

9 19

Updated deadlines - minutes, RFP, charter, secretariat
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 5, 2014

Aug. 5, 2014

Hi all, I have updated the Action Items list (attached and in Dropbox). It proposes specific timelines for a number of items that we agreed to work on and lists who the owners are — whether the full ICG or some specific person. Please respond ASAP if you think any of these deadlines need to be changed. I’ve tried to synthesize various conversations in other threads to come up with these. In places where “Secretariat” is listed as the owner, I can work with them to get materials posted if necessary. == Secretariat description == Comments due by July 31 Adiel to produce an updated version by Aug 4 Final version to be published and advertised by Aug 7 assuming we reach agreement on content == Communities RFP == Comments due by Aug 1 Paul to produce an updated version by Aug 5 Draft version to be published to communities by Aug 8 (acknowledging its draft-y nature). == Meeting minutes == Comments due by Aug 7 Final versions to be published by Aug 13 == Charter == Originally I think we were hoping to have received all charter comments roughly by Aug 1. Mohamed has made a proposal that we setup an explicit mechanism to solicit community feedback on the charter and announce a clear deadline for comments. I have not seen anyone oppose this proposal. So my suggestion is that I work with the secretariat to get an email alias (not a mailing list) up and running where community members can send comments if they are not able to convey them via an ICG member (which I still think is the preferred approach in general for charter comments). Comments sent to this alias would be directly reflected on a web page that we can setup. Assuming we can get this working by July 31, I suggest that we announce an Aug 8 deadline for charter comments. This is not a lengthy period of time but I think we had a general sense that it’s most important to get the broad outlines of the charter right rather than spending weeks on the details, so hopefully this will be sufficient. Once the comments come in, Jari will have the token to produce an updated version which we can hopefully come to consensus on in the second half of August. One last comment: I know that people were not very warm to the idea of having a conference call in August before we meet face-to-face. However, with all of these deliverables coming up and with us sorting out our decision making processes as we go, I tend to think that having a call during the week of August 11 or August 18 would be beneficial. Of course some folks will be on holiday and whatnot but it might still help to touch base in real time for an hour. Can I interest anyone in that? ;-) Thanks, Alissa

18 21

Results of chair structure poll
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 4, 2014

Aug. 4, 2014

I have reviewed the results of the chair poll <http://tinyurl.com/ptrr2m6> and wanted to summarize where I think we are. Twenty-one ICG participants responded to the poll (out of 30).* There were four choices for people to provide feedback about in the poll: One chair with one alternate (“1+1”) Two co-chairs (“2”) One chair with two alternates (“1+2”) Three co-chairs (“3”) There was no clear consensus among respondents about their preference among the above choices — in fact responses were fairly evenly split among all four choices. Ten people preferred the options that would yield two chairs (1+1 or 2); 11 people preferred options that would yield three chairs (1+2 or 3). The option preferred by the greatest number of respondents was (3), with seven responses in favor, compared to five for (1+1), five for (2), and four for (1+2). The rationales given for people’s choices related primarily to organizational concerns (i.e., which structure will make it easiest to share the workload, determine consensus, organize amongst the chairs themselves), diversity/balance of many sorts among the chairs, and political aspects. These rationales were argued in different directions, for and against the different options — again no consensus that I could see. The poll also asked about which options people can’t live with. Five respondents said they could not live with (3), four said they could not live with (2), and each of the other options had two respondents each. Most respondents could live with all four options. So, it’s not obvious what to do here. Here is my suggestion, in the spirit of compromise: We go with one chair and two vice chairs (1+2) where the work is expected to be divided among all three people. This can mitigate some of the organizational concerns (since there will be one chair to be the backstop responsible for getting things done if necessary) while providing three slots’ worth of opportunity for diversity of different flavors. More people preferred options that would yield three chairs, so this fits that bill, and among the two options for that, (1+2) was the less controversial (most everyone can live with it). My hope is that people can accept this compromise in the interest of getting on with the real work at hand -- if you absolutely cannot live with this, please say so by Aug 5 at 20:00 UTC (if you're ok with it, hearing that would be helpful too). Assuming people can accept this approach, I’d like to ask Joe to figure out a process for conducting an email vote or some such to get people appointed to these roles next week. Alissa * One member of the community also responded.

18 24

ICG Secretariat
by Adiel Akplogan Aug. 3, 2014

Aug. 3, 2014

Dear all, I have volunteered in London to takeover the issue on ICG Secretariat. Please see attached a document for input and comment where are try to define some criteria and framework for the secretariat function. I have suggested that we have the ToR published by the first week of August, so we will need to finalise this document by the end of next week (31/07/2014). Thanks. - a.

12 15

ICG mtg #2 was announced
by Alice Jansen Aug. 1, 2014

Aug. 1, 2014

Dear ICG Members, For your information, please note that the ICG meeting #2 (including remote participation details) was announced on the ICANN website yesterday - see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-16-en Thanks, Best regards Alice

3 3

Reminder: RFP comments due Aug 1
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 1, 2014

Aug. 1, 2014

Please respond to the “Redraft of RFP” thread started by Paul by Aug 1, 20:00 UTC. http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000435.html

2 1

Third F2F meeting - Oct 17
by Alissa Cooper July 31, 2014

July 31, 2014

This week we got a few more responses to the face-to-face meeting doodle poll <http://doodle.com/76seg27mgz4i44m5> and by far the date with best availability for the group is October 17. ICANN staff has confirmed that there is a room available for us to meet that day in Los Angeles, with a hard stop at 17:30. So I think we should go ahead and schedule our third face-to-face meeting for that day and have ICANN staff make the arrangements. I realize this date does not work for everyone, but that is bound to be the case now and again in a group of this size (for example, I personally will not be able to attend in person on Sept 6 due to a prior conflict). We will have remote participation and translation as usual. Alissa

6 7

With attachment: PLEASE READ - ICG Mtg #2 - Travel & RP
by Alice Jansen July 31, 2014

July 31, 2014

Dear ICG Members, It appears I forgot to include the travel request form attachment. Now rectified. Apologies for any confusion or inconvenience this may have caused. Best regards Alice From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:57 PM To: "internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>" <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: PLEASE READ - ICG Mtg #2 - Travel & RP Dear ICG Members, As announced by Alissa, the ICG in-person meeting # 2 will take place on: ** Saturday, 6 September 2014** At the Grand Hyatt<http://istanbul.grand.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html> in Istanbul Meeting room: Tyana 1&2 09:00-17:30 EEST - 06:00-14:30 UTC See timezone conversion at: http://tinyurl.com/qz5zjh3 Remote participation (RP) features will be available for ICG members who are not in a position to attend the meeting in person. Remote Participation & Interpreting The global multistakeholder community will be able to follow your exchanges through the virtual meeting room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/. Coordination Group Members participating remotely in the meeting should join the adobe connect room to view any material being displayed in the meeting room. The dial-in bridge details will be sent to you in a separate email (off list). Please note that we will have interpreting services at the meeting. Links to the respective languages are available below: * English - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-en.m3u * French - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-fr.m3u * Spanish - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-es.m3u * Chinese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-zh.m3u * Russian - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ru.m3u * Arabic - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ar.m3u * Portuguese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-pt.m3u The community will be also be able to follow the real time transcript (RTT) at http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=06Sep2014icg (also available in the virtual meeting room). Travel Support As indicated in the process published on 6 June 2014, meal and lodging costs for ICG members to participate in ICG meetings will be covered by ICANN, upon request and in accordance with ICANN's community travel support guidelines<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/travel-support-2012-02-25-en>. Supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (5-7 September 2014) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. Should you need travel support to attend this meeting, please inform ICANN staff as soon as possible and no later than Tuesday, 5 August - COB. ICANN staff will require your duly completed travel support request form (attached) to process your request - kindly ensure to return it to cgtravel(a)icann.org<mailto:cgtravel@icann.org> within the timeframe identified above. Note that delays in providing your information will not guarantee travel support. Should you have already made travel arrangements to attend the IGF meeting in Istanbul, please inform staff (off list) whether you need travel support to extend your stay. Thank you - Best regards, Alice

1 0

Reminder: Secretariat feedback due July 31, 20:00 UTC
by Alissa Cooper July 31, 2014

July 31, 2014

Please respond on the “ICG Secretariat” thread started by Adiel. http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000493.html Alissa

1 0

PLEASE READ - ICG Mtg #2 - Travel & RP
by Alice Jansen July 30, 2014

July 30, 2014

Dear ICG Members, As announced by Alissa, the ICG in-person meeting # 2 will take place on: ** Saturday, 6 September 2014** At the Grand Hyatt<http://istanbul.grand.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html> in Istanbul Meeting room: Tyana 1&2 09:00-17:30 EEST - 06:00-14:30 UTC See timezone conversion at: http://tinyurl.com/qz5zjh3 Remote participation (RP) features will be available for ICG members who are not in a position to attend the meeting in person. Remote Participation & Interpreting The global multistakeholder community will be able to follow your exchanges through the virtual meeting room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/. Coordination Group Members participating remotely in the meeting should join the adobe connect room to view any material being displayed in the meeting room. The dial-in bridge details will be sent to you in a separate email (off list). Please note that we will have interpreting services at the meeting. Links to the respective languages are available below: * English - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-en.m3u * French - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-fr.m3u * Spanish - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-es.m3u * Chinese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-zh.m3u * Russian - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ru.m3u * Arabic - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ar.m3u * Portuguese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-pt.m3u The community will be also be able to follow the real time transcript (RTT) at http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=06Sep2014icg (also available in the virtual meeting room). Travel Support As indicated in the process published on 6 June 2014, meal and lodging costs for ICG members to participate in ICG meetings will be covered by ICANN, upon request and in accordance with ICANN's community travel support guidelines<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/travel-support-2012-02-25-en>. Supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (5-7 September 2014) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. Should you need travel support to attend this meeting, please inform ICANN staff as soon as possible and no later than Tuesday, 5 August - COB. ICANN staff will require your duly completed travel support request form (attached) to process your request - kindly ensure to return it to cgtravel(a)icann.org<mailto:cgtravel@icann.org> within the timeframe identified above. Note that delays in providing your information will not guarantee travel support. Should you have already made travel arrangements to attend the IGF meeting in Istanbul, please inform staff (off list) whether you need travel support to extend your stay. Thank you - Best regards, Alice

1 0

Confirmed: Next F2F meeting Sept 6
by Alissa Cooper July 30, 2014

July 30, 2014

All, We are confirmed to meet face-to-face all day on September 6 in Istanbul. We have a room and translation service available. I suggest starting at 9:00 and concluding at 17:30. Either myself or the ICANN staff will follow up with logistical information shortly. I will follow up about meeting in October in a separate email. Alissa

2 1

Timeline
by Russ Housley July 30, 2014

July 30, 2014

I've been volunteered to lead the session on timeline. I put this together based on the mail list traffic. Please tell me now if I missed something. Russ

13 20

Reminder: Chair structure poll
by Alissa Cooper July 29, 2014

July 29, 2014

This is a reminder to complete the chair structure poll if you have not already (deadline is July 30 at 20:00 UTC): http://tinyurl.com/pgufgjh I realize some folks find this controversial, but we have only 11 responses so far out of 30 and it would be good to get more complete information about the group’s views on this topic. Thanks, Alissa On 7/25/14, 1:46 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: >I have taken Joe’s suggestion and created a poll concerning chair >structure [1]: > >http://tinyurl.com/pgufgjh > >I suggest we set a deadline of July 30 at 20:00 UTC for people to respond >to the poll. After that, we can create another poll for actually selecting >people, or take an email vote, or work it out by some other mechanism that >we can figure out next week. > >The responses to the chair structure poll will be publicly visible here >[2]: http://tinyurl.com/ptrr2m6 > >I appreciate that we are still figuring out the details of our processes >and consensus mechanisms. We did have support for the three co-chair >structure in London, and now we appear to have some support for other >models, so I think in this bootstrapping phase we should be at least a bit >flexible and take a little more time to determine a structure that has >broad support. I also recognize that we’ve had a variety of deadlines >suggested for different aspects of this chair selection issue, but my >sense from the list discussion is that resolving this structure question >mid-next-week and the actual personnel selection shortly thereafter will >work while I continue as interim chair. > >Please fill out the chair structure poll by July 30 at 20:00 UTC and we’ll >take it from there. > >Thanks, >Alissa > >[1] Full URL is here (I used tinyurl to avoid line-break problems): >https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1gngAa7fjboC9y2zdKs7rmH9H08RLyW7Qv4hE1Dj0D >2 >Y/viewform > >[2] Full URL: >https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xJkGxBRu6BBPX9XSTCRQNblNG7QEE-RllG >R >9ZCvvY8g/edit#gid=1350424468 > > >On 7/25/14, 9:53 AM, "Jon Nevett" <jon(a)donuts.co> wrote: > >>I'm sure that the ICANN staff folks could do it if we agree on the >>questions to ask and that the exercise is worthwhile. Best, jon >> >> >> >>On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:41 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> >>wrote: >> >>> While I have used doodle I have not set one up, so i would invite >>>anyone so inclined to go forth and doodle. I would however remind >>>everyone that we have a 2 stage question: >>> >>> 1. Composition of Chairs - Three co-chairs or Chair/Alternate+ >>>volunteers >>> 2. Who will serve. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Joe >>> On 7/25/2014 8:45 AM, Jon Nevett wrote: >>>> Joe: >>>> >>>> In various ICANN fora, we have used Doodle polls to determine >>>>substantive issues in addition to scheduling meetings. It's a >>>>relatively quick way to get a sense of the group and it might be >>>>appropriate in this situation. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Jon >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 25, 2014, at 8:34 AM, joseph alhadeff >>>><joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Colleagues: >>>>> >>>>> Alissa is already interim chair, as of London. I assume she has been >>>>>somewhat silent on the topic because of what might be considered a >>>>>conflict of interest. >>>>> >>>>> One point was clear in London however, the Chair does not determine >>>>>unilaterally what is consensus except for the administrative matters >>>>>related to running meetings. Where no consensus emerges, the Chair >>>>>leads a process of coming to consensus. That is different than >>>>>determining consensus. Thus, I would have to take exception to >>>>>Patrik's solution of the appointment of one chair resolves the process >>>>>issue. Furthermore, in this case it might be difficult for the >>>>>Interim Chair to run the process of consensus related to her possibly >>>>>becoming chair... >>>>> >>>>> I would however suggest, that each of us bears a participatory >>>>>responsibility. If we don't agree with a proposal we must step >>>>>forward with opposing or differing views. Those views need to be made >>>>>known at the earliest opportunity. If this constructive participation >>>>>does not emerge then our mission is doomed from the outset. My >>>>>suggestion would be that each decision point provide a fixed time, not >>>>>less than a week, for consultation. With the exception of consensus >>>>>on the proposals, which should be more carefully judged, each proposal >>>>>would then achieve consensus by having a preponderance of the >>>>>communities entitled to vote (each of the separate groups identified >>>>>in Patrik's list, excluding liaisons) support it. Comments may also >>>>>suggest the need for more time to consult on the decision or raise the >>>>>importance of the issue to justify a more deliberative process. I am >>>>>fine with the interim chair or secretariat acting as the collection >>>>>point of views, but they should also be copied to the list for >>>>>transparency. For the Chair function, it might be best to keep posting >>>>>to the list. >>>>> >>>>> I know folks wanted to avoid levels of bureaucracy, but I prefer >>>>>established process to endless cycles of review with no potential to >>>>>conclude... Equally happy to entertain other proposals. >>>>> >>>>> Jean-Jacques - you indicated you were consulting with colleagues, can >>>>>you say when the group will provide an opinion? Open-ended timelines >>>>>will not help us develop efficient process or workflows. >>>>> >>>>> Best- >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/25/2014 7:17 AM, WUKnoben wrote: >>>>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>>>> >>>>>> I acknowledge the different views on >>>>>> 1. discussing and solving more principle questions about role and >>>>>>number of (co-) chairs and >>>>>> 2. continuing the work of the ICG where the chair shall be given a >>>>>>focal role on taking initiatives and organization >>>>>> >>>>>> Both seems equally necessary. In this regard I suggest to appoint >>>>>>Alissa as Interim Chair with chairperson authorization as described >>>>>>by Patrik until we've finished the principle questions and a >>>>>>following (co-) chair selection. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques >>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 9:32 AM >>>>>> To: ICG Internal >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Appointment of Alissa Cooper as chair of >>>>>>ICG >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>>>> >>>>>> this is to inform you that the ALAC will be sending its observations >>>>>>shortly, not only on the structure of the Coordination Group, but >>>>>>also on other matters of importance. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the meantime, the ALAC respectfully requests that decisions >>>>>>concerning the roles of individual members not be taken before some >>>>>>questions of principle have been adequately addressed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Jean-Jacques. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>>>> De: "Narelle Clark" <narelle.clark(a)accan.org.au> >>>>>> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson(a)apnic.net>, "Patrik Fältström" >>>>>><paf(a)frobbit.se> >>>>>> Cc: "ICG Internal" <internal-cg(a)icann.org> >>>>>> Envoyé: Vendredi 25 Juillet 2014 08:45:51 >>>>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Appointment of Alissa Cooper as chair of >>>>>>ICG >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Patrik, on those conditions, I also support Alissa's >>>>>>appointment. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Narelle Clark >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >>>>>>[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson >>>>>> Sent: Friday, 25 July 2014 4:42 PM >>>>>> To: Patrik Fältström >>>>>> Cc: ICG Internal >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Appointment of Alissa Cooper as chair of >>>>>>ICG >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Patrik, I support. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 25 Jul 2014, at 4:40 pm, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I hereby take the initiative to ask for consensus for appointment >>>>>>>of Alissa Cooper as the chair of ICG. This does not imply anything >>>>>>>regarding whether we should have one or more chairs, one chair and >>>>>>>zero of more alternate chairs, status of the document by Joseph etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It just, if it passes, gives the power to Alissa to be able to >>>>>>>define when we have consensus in ICG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If someone OBJECTS to Alissa being appointed as a chair, that >>>>>>>objection should be sent to this list no later than 1800 UTC on >>>>>>>Monday July 28. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there are zero objections on Monday July 28 at 1800 UTC I find >>>>>>>Alissa Cooper be appointed as the chair of ICG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Main reason for me to ask for this (which anyone can object to as >>>>>>>you see above) is that I feel we need someone being "the chair" to >>>>>>>even be able to reach consensus on the document that define what the >>>>>>>role of the chair is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So this call is to bootstrap our processes. Nothing more, nothing >>>>>>>less. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Patrik Fältström >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>> >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Internal-cg mailing list >>Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

URGENT, suggested poll.
by Subrenat, Jean-Jacques July 29, 2014

July 29, 2014

Good morning Alissa, Hello Colleagues, The Chair of the ALAC has asked me to bring to your attention the following: 1) In his recent message to this list, Olivier pointed out that "The ALAC considers it essential to uphold the decision taken in London to appoint 3 Co-Chairs, the process of which cannot be put to fault". There has not yet been a response or reply to this letter. 2) The poll your have set up regarding the leadership structure proposes several alternatives, but is based on a makeshift process following someone's ad hoc suggestion: this cannot in any way have the same standing as the UNANIMOUS decision of the CG in London to have 3 Co-Chairs. In careful consideration of the above, the ALAC respectfully requests that the decision taken in London about the leadership structure be acted upon without delay, and that the proposed poll be discontinued. It is the sincere hope of the ALAC that the Coordination Group will take this opportunity to fully implement the principles of diversity, balance and fairness, so as to create a truly global trust regarding its membership and confidence in its processes. Thank you. Best regards, Jean-Jacques.

8 7

Re: [Internal-cg] Room availability for Sept meeting
by Alissa Cooper July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

I just got word that we should know for sure about Sept 6 room availability by tomorrow, and that it’s looking likely that a room will be available. So let’s table this discussion until tomorrow unless anyone feels like they absolutely cannot wait one more day. Thanks, Alissa On 7/28/14, 8:30 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: >The ICANN staff has been busily trying to find a place for us to meet in >Istanbul, and this is proving rather difficult. > >Currently, the only day when there is both a room available in which we >can meet and when the translation service is available is Friday, >September 5, which is the last day of the IGF. The ICANN staff are still >investigating possibilities for September 6, but there are public holidays >in Turkey this week, which means it may take a few more days before we >have any more information about room availability for September 6. (On >Sept 1 there is room availability but the translation service is not >available — I do not think we can meet without translation, but if you >disagree, please say so.) > >At this point I think we have three options: > >1. Decide that we will not meet in Istanbul. >With this option, people who need to urgently make travel arrangements for >the IGF can do so immediately. The ICANN staff is still checking on room >availability in Los Angeles around the ICANN 51 meeting time, so we could >aim to schedule our next face-to-face meeting around ICANN 51 by the end >of this week or early next week (and perhaps schedule a couple of >conference calls between now and then as well). We could also try to put >together an informal “get to know each other” gathering in Istanbul even >if we don’t meet formally. > >2. Decide that we will meet on September 5. >Some ICG participants will certainly have conflicts at various points >during the day on September 5, but we could meet anyway, or perhaps meet >for part of the day. There is a plenary session about IANA on the IGF >schedule from 9:30 to 11:00 that day; we could plan to meet from 11:30 to >18:00, for example. I have also reached out to a contact involved with the >IGF organizing to see if that IANA session could be moved to a different >day so that the ICG could meet for the full day, and she is checking on >that. Note: The room that is available to us on September 5 is near the >IGF venue (it’s at the Grand Hyatt), but not at the IGF venue, so people >transferring back and forth between the two venues will need a little bit >of time to do that. > >3. Wait until we get more information about September 6 to decide. >Hopefully by the end of this week we will know more about room >availability on September 6, so we could wait for that information before >deciding. > >What are your thoughts about how to proceed? Do people have drop-dead >dates by which they absolutely must book their travel? > >Thanks, >Alissa > > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

2 1

Room availability for Sept meeting
by Alissa Cooper July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

The ICANN staff has been busily trying to find a place for us to meet in Istanbul, and this is proving rather difficult. Currently, the only day when there is both a room available in which we can meet and when the translation service is available is Friday, September 5, which is the last day of the IGF. The ICANN staff are still investigating possibilities for September 6, but there are public holidays in Turkey this week, which means it may take a few more days before we have any more information about room availability for September 6. (On Sept 1 there is room availability but the translation service is not available — I do not think we can meet without translation, but if you disagree, please say so.) At this point I think we have three options: 1. Decide that we will not meet in Istanbul. With this option, people who need to urgently make travel arrangements for the IGF can do so immediately. The ICANN staff is still checking on room availability in Los Angeles around the ICANN 51 meeting time, so we could aim to schedule our next face-to-face meeting around ICANN 51 by the end of this week or early next week (and perhaps schedule a couple of conference calls between now and then as well). We could also try to put together an informal “get to know each other” gathering in Istanbul even if we don’t meet formally. 2. Decide that we will meet on September 5. Some ICG participants will certainly have conflicts at various points during the day on September 5, but we could meet anyway, or perhaps meet for part of the day. There is a plenary session about IANA on the IGF schedule from 9:30 to 11:00 that day; we could plan to meet from 11:30 to 18:00, for example. I have also reached out to a contact involved with the IGF organizing to see if that IANA session could be moved to a different day so that the ICG could meet for the full day, and she is checking on that. Note: The room that is available to us on September 5 is near the IGF venue (it’s at the Grand Hyatt), but not at the IGF venue, so people transferring back and forth between the two venues will need a little bit of time to do that. 3. Wait until we get more information about September 6 to decide. Hopefully by the end of this week we will know more about room availability on September 6, so we could wait for that information before deciding. What are your thoughts about how to proceed? Do people have drop-dead dates by which they absolutely must book their travel? Thanks, Alissa

2 1

Message to the Members of the Coordination Group.
by Subrenat, Jean-Jacques July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

Dear Colleagues, the Chair of the ALAC has asked me to convey the following message to the Members of the Coordination Group. BEGIN QUOTE Dear Members of the Coordination Group, The ALAC is pleased with the rapid formation of the Coordination Group (CG) and the clear indication, during its initial meeting in London, that this Group is keen to achieve progress and present viable recommendations, all within a specific timeline. The following represents the ALAC’s views on key structural and leadership aspects of the CG: (1) COMPOSITION OF THE CG The Transfer of the IANA Functions’ Stewardship, as initiated by the US Government's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), is about divesting US Government oversight and transferring its responsibility to the GLOBAL Internet Community. Yet, the current composition of the CG, which is tasked with coordinating the development of the transfer proposal, is such that it already conveys the wrong message with regards to diversity and geographic balance: - 12 members come from the single region of North America, including 11 of US citizenship; - Business interests are widely represented in various guises; and - The global Internet user/non-operational stakeholders are under-represented. Given that this unbalanced composition of the CG is difficult to correct at this juncture, it is crucial that the formation of the leadership team be done with care and sensitivity to the diversity of the global multistakeholder Internet Community. The CG’s actions are currently being followed with some concern, and will remain under scrutiny. (2) LEADERSHIP TEAM OF THE CG Appointment of an Interim Chair: The ALAC is aware of the importance of having an effective Interim Chair to facilitate the initial organizational aspects of the CG, including the process of selecting the CG’s Leadership Team. We support the consensus call to appoint Alissa Cooper as the Interim Chair, as we view her facilitation of the London meeting to have been excellent. Formation of the Leadership Team: The ALAC considers it essential to uphold the decision taken in London to appoint 3 Co-Chairs, the process of which cannot be put to fault. The selection of the Leadership Team should also be taken as an opportunity to restore its desirable balance, and to improve the image that the CG projects to the world in terms of equal treatment and diversity. Towards this end, individuals to be selected as Co-Chairs must represent different regions and citizenships, and should not favour, or be seen to favour, businesses or entities that are already strongly represented in the Coordination Group. While ensuring its efficiency, the CG must also take into account the expectations of the global multistakeholder communities outside the Coordination Group. On behalf of the ALAC, I wish you every success in the accomplishment of your important task. Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC. END OF QUOTE. Best regards, Jean-Jacques.

2 1

How to define consensus in ICG?
by Patrik Fältström July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

I am concerned we have issues here and I would like to propose the following as a boot strap mechanism to be able to move forward. First, this proposal is based on upon the fact we do have one and only one chair. We could have alternates as well, but the special role of the chair I here define can only be passed to an alternate on explicit call by the chair. This mechanism could work also with more than one person having the same "power", and in that case all individuals are to fall into the category "chair" in the text below. Second, it is also based upon the fact that although we are representing and to some degree liaisons between ICG and whatever community that appointed us, we are all as individuals collectively responsible for ensuring ICG do deliver whatever we are to deliver. As such we as individual must be able to use the trust we have had to make some decisions without going back to our respective consensus processes for every single decision. If nothing else it is important to *now* go back to understand where the red lines are, and what we are allowed to make decisions on and not without explicitly going back. With these basis, I suggest the following. We have two different kinds of issues to decide upon: A. The non-substantial issues that might has to do with how we work, what tools and processes we use to reach certain goals and what not. B. The substantial issues that none of us can say anything about without ensuring some consensus process has come to some conclusion. Of course there is a large gray area between A and B. But my point is that we do have a large set of issues that are of type A. And personally, I think some of the issues we have today not been able to reach consensus on are of type A. I.e. we SHOULD as individuals given we are appointed be able to reach consensus. 1. How to reach consensus on issues of type A Issues of type A are by the chair announced to this mailing list. The proposals and choices are clearly defined. The chair give a deadline at which point choices should have been filed. The chair can decide wether choices should be sent to the list, to the chair personally or whether some online poll should be used. In all cases the result of the poll, including who have what input, should be presented to this list. The minimum time between the call from the chair and close of the poll is "one business day". Normal time should be "three business days". Business day is Mon-Fri minus travel days, holidays etc...but ultimately we trust our chair to make the right decision here. Possible responses can part from selection of choice, whether one agree or not, be to call this not to be of category A, but instead category B and that way ask for extended evaluation. Non-responses is to be treated as "not against the proposal", but should in the summary be reported as a separate category. At the end of the poll, the chair draw conclusions, and present the consensus based conclusion to this list. Summary: Chair clearly let on this list know what issue there is, and ask for feedback no later than a certain point in time. Non-responses are to be treated as "not against". Shortest time for the feedback one day. Chair draw and present conclusions. 2. How to reach consensus on issues of type B Issues of type B are by the chair announced to this mailing list. Substantive matters must be backed by arguments based on the result from the consensus based processes in the respective communities. I.e. it is for these matters not ourselves as individuals that makes the call, but we are coordinating and summarizing what the communities do think about a specific issues. ICG as a whole is also to write explicit reasons for various conclusions, specifically when the consensus is not a unanimous conclusion, or when feedback is completely missing from a certain category of communities. Exactly how to reach consensus on these matters, and how to do the coordination, outreach, repeated outreach when we have lack of information, are things we probably have to invent more or less on the fly when we move forward, but I do hope that all of these calls are decisions on type A. As you can see, I want us to first of all: a. Agree on us having "at least a chair, if not chair plus alternates" b. Agree on who is the chair c. Agree the whole point of having a chair is that we trust the chair be responsible for identifying Type A issues, and move forward I now leave this open ended as we do not even know today how to reach consensus on some proposal like this. :-) That said, I feel we are close to consensus on (a), and also (b) as I have not seen anyone oppose Alissa be our chair. Patrik

6 7

Action items
by Alissa Cooper July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

I know we have deadlines and action items flying around on the list and it can be difficult to follow all of the mailing list threads. I have uploaded an “Action items” file to the Dropbox folder to start keeping track of these a bit better. The list is incomplete — it has only the charter structure poll on it right now — and probably eventually needs to have some more fields (e.g., who has the token for each item). But I wanted to at least have a temporary place to start keeping track of these. I will add the other outstanding ones next week. If people have problems with Excel or suggestions for their favorite tools for tracking these sorts of things, let me know. Thanks, Alissa

3 3

Doodle poll for possible dates for the f2f meeting(s)
by Patrik Fältström July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

Please indicate on this Doodle web page on what Fridays you can, can not and maybe can have f2f meetings. Please indicate in comments...comments and reasons for your choices. <http://doodle.com/76seg27mgz4i44m5> Patrik

14 28

Draft charter --> dropbox
by Milton L Mueller July 26, 2014

July 26, 2014

Unless I am mistaken, the most important document we are working on, the draft charter, was not in the "First Meeting" folder of the ICG. So I just added it. Milton L Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org

1 0

Rép: Re: Appointment of Alissa Cooper as chair of ICG
by jjs July 26, 2014

July 26, 2014

Dear Patrik, thank you for your comments. Shortly, the ALAC will make known its position on these and other important issues, by way of a letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the members of the Coordination Group, which I will be forwarding. In the meantime, allow me to offer two remarks: - In London we appointed one of our colleagues as Interim Chair; as far as I'm aware, this decision has not been rescinded, so there is no need to appoint or confirm an Interim Chair. - As you have pointed out, balance is necessary, and the optics are also important. But this is more than about just optics: any move made in the name of expediency and to the detriment of principle, would weaken the likelihood of a durable transition, perhaps even put it in jeopardy. In line with the above, you will understand that, as a representative of the ALAC, I cannot respond to the spontaneous vote and deadline you suggested. Also, this refusal to be drawn into a makeshift process should not be interpreted as approval or disapproval of any individual. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> a écrit : > >Dear Jean-Jacques, > >I hope my email was interpreted wrongly and that we can move forward slowly. > >I completely understand your concern, and I find it being important to look at our processes and roles from an optics perspective. Just the last couple of days discussions about members and liaisons and this about appointment of leadership (which probably should be done with some reflexion on geography, gender, what party the individual represent etc) demonstrate to me we need a leader, call it interim, that can move us forward. > >In London we agreed Alissa was that person for that meeting and I understand some people do think she still is. I did not think so or at least I wanted us to close that issue at least so that someone (Alissa) can be and act as chair until those issues are resolved. > >Which of course could imply appointing three or five people of equal rank as chair out of which one might be Alissa or not. Or not appoint anyone. Or accept Alissa is continuing while appointing two Assistants. > >What I asked for is consensus among us to have Alissa be the person that until we have a new leadership can and should act as our leader. Call it interim if you want. > >If no objection is rised before Monday 1800 I find her be in that role. > >With this clarification, I ask you whether you can accept her have that role, or if this notice from you is to be interpreted as an objection. > >Please clarify. > > Patrik > >> On 25 jul 2014, at 09:32, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs(a)dyalog.net> wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> this is to inform you that the ALAC will be sending its observations shortly, not only on the structure of the Coordination Group, but also on other matters of importance. >> >> In the meantime, the ALAC respectfully requests that decisions concerning the roles of individual members not be taken before some questions of principle have been adequately addressed. >> >> Best regards, >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Narelle Clark" <narelle.clark(a)accan.org.au> >> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson(a)apnic.net>, "Patrik Fältström" <paf(a)frobbit.se> >> Cc: "ICG Internal" <internal-cg(a)icann.org> >> Envoyé: Vendredi 25 Juillet 2014 08:45:51 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Appointment of Alissa Cooper as chair of ICG >> >> >> Thanks Patrik, on those conditions, I also support Alissa's appointment. >> >> >> Best regards

6 6

Minutes for Day 2 of 1st ICG Meeting
by Samantha Dickinson July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014

Apologies for the delay in getting these through. The list of action items is slightly longer than that originally summarized at the end of Day 2 by Alissa as I picked out a couple of smaller actions that were mentioned in passing during the day. I have also included updates on the action items from Day 1 as reported during Day 2. I've attached an updated version of the proposed annex that now contains the information from the introductions on Day 2. Finally, one thing I noticed when trying to add hyperlinks in the minutes to documents that had been posted to the mailing list: while the email archives are totally public now, some of the attachments are still located in the earlier private file structure and require a password to be accessed. To overcome this, I have linked to the HTML page of the email message rather than directly to the attachment. Let me know if this is a problem. Regards Sam -- Samantha Dickinson Internet governance consultant & writer Lingua Synaptica Web: http://linguasynaptica.com Phone: 0414 636 760 Skype: sgdickinson Twitter: @sgdickinson

1 0