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

Document naming strategy
by Patrik Fältström Aug. 29, 2014

Aug. 29, 2014

Hi, I have watched the naming convention people have been using of their documents. I suggest the following, which I think is very close to what has been in use: During development of a document: The person responsible for the document do now and then create new (clean) versions, and those have the name: Example: Whatever-Issue-v3.doc Format: <topic>-<subtopic (if needed)>-v<N>.<type> If people comment they can do one of two things: a. Add initials to the filename and save as new file: Example: Whatever-Issue-v3-paf.doc Format: <topic>-<subtopic (if needed)>-v<N>-<initials>.<type> Or: Example: Whatever-Issue-v3-paf-ac.doc Format: <topic>-<subtopic (if needed)>-v<N>-<initials>.<type> b. Add things in the document with change markings on, save as same name The document edited can be either the main one (latest version) or later version with initials. Discussions on calls for example, or "last call", is on a document of a certain version (without the suffixes): Example: Whatever-Issue-v3.doc The final, approved, document is named without version number: Example: Whatever-Issue.doc Format: <topic>-<subtopic (if needed)>.<type> It is the person being responsible for the document that should create new versions when needed. We will ask the secretariat to (help the document manager, which is an ICG member) to keep track of versions of document, and rename if needed. Patrik Fältström

3 3

Fwd: Consensus building process
by Kavouss Arasteh Aug. 28, 2014

Aug. 28, 2014

Dear Alissa, I have sent Rev 2 of the doc. relating consensus building. Have you considered that Pls kindly reply KAVOUSS ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> Date: 2014-08-27 19:59 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process To: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> Dear Alissa? O made some amendments and forwarded the rev.2 to all for comments Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 27 Aug 2014, at 01:03, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > > I made a small change to at the bottom of page 1 in v4 to explain the role > of liaisons. > > I haven’t seen any responses to the other changes, explained in my note > below. Any outstanding objections to the v4 version? > > Thanks, > Alissa > >> On 8/21/14, 5:13 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have attached and uploaded to Dropbox a v4 that addresses my remaining >> concerns with the consensus document. It is based on the v3 that was >> uploaded by Paul earlier this week. Here is a summary of the changes and >> my rationales for them: >> >> 1) Personnel decisions vs. All other decisions >> In section 4 I have created two subsections, one about personnel decisions >> and one about all other decisions. I have removed the language about >> “substantive” and “non-substantive” because it wasn’t clear to me what it >> meant and I think the actual meaningful distinction is personnel vs. >> non-personnel decisions. That is, for personnel decisions I think voting >> and going with the majority winner is fine; for all other decisions I do >> not think we should vote. >> >> As I mentioned in the chat window on the call, I don’t see how we can >> credibly vote on document approvals and other non-personnel matters since >> our numbers in terms of representation of constituencies (which themselves >> can be sliced and diced many different ways) are arbitrary. >> >> 2) Hold-out problem >> As I stated before I was concerned about the language in the document that >> required all of the operational community representatives (or “IANA >> customers”) to be satisfied with every decision, because I believe this >> would allow one group to prevent the full ICG from moving forward. From my >> perspective the important parts are (i) that we spend sufficient time >> trying to accommodate objections, and (ii) that we document objections >> that cannot be accommodated. As long as we put in a serious effort at >> accommodation and objectors can explain in as much detail as they like why >> they object, I don’t think any individual or group should have the power >> to prevent our process from moving forward or to prevent us from sending a >> proposal to NTIA. I have therefore removed the language about satisfying >> all IANA customers. >> >> 3) Principles >> I thought the second set of principles was clearer than the first, so I >> have kept the second and deleted the first. I do not believe we can put a >> numeric figure on “rough consensus” for the same reason that we should not >> be voting, and the term “rough consensus” does not otherwise appear in the >> document, so I removed the 4/5 requirement as well. >> >> 4) Methodology >> I have made a number of suggestions to the methodology section. I propose >> as a first step that the chair/co-chairs set a time frame for discussion, >> which can be extended if necessary. I suggest that re-evaluation of a >> published designation only occur in light of serious objections to the >> designation — this should be an exceptional circumstance. I removed the >> notion that the designation would continue to be updated until everyone >> agrees with it because I don’t understand how that process would ever >> terminate. And I added more detail about the nature of polls. >> >> 5) Appeal >> I removed the language about the ability for any participant to appeal a >> designation — again, I don’t understand how a decision-making process >> would terminate if there can be endless appeals, and if we go down the >> path of documenting objections, I don’t think this is necessary. >> >> 6) Decision-making venues >> I think we should be able to make decisions on the mailing list >> (especially easy ones :-)) in addition to during meetings, so I added some >> words to that effect. >> >> 7) Editorial >> I did a bunch of editorial clean-up. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Alissa >> >> >>> On 8/20/14, 11:12 AM, "Manal Ismail" <manal(a)tra.gov.eg> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Wolf-Ulrich and apologies for my late reply .. >>> I was already not fully satisfied with the language I suggested and was >>> open for better language .. >>> But in the absence of any, I'm ok with reverting back to the original >>> text .. >>> Thanks again for the heads up .. >>> Kind Regards >>> --Manal >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] >>> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 10:43 PM >>> To: Manal Ismail; Lynn St.Amour; Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>> >>> Thanks Manal, >>> >>> I think we starting a bit mixing between charter related items and those >>> items related to these draft guidelines. The ICG role must definitely be >>> fixed in the charter. What is expressed in the guidelines can per se only >>> work within the limited role of the ICG. Whether it's "decision making" >>> or "conclusion" - this is just wording and needs common understanding. >>> But for me "administrative" decision making looks a bit confusing as it >>> could imply additional ICG guidelines for "other" decision making. >>> So for the latest draft version (v3) coming up I took the liberty, not to >>> accept your amendments in this respect. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> From: Manal Ismail >>> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 2:22 PM >>> To: Lynn St.Amour ; Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>> >>> I fully agree with Lynn that, within our task of >>> coordinating/assimilating proposals, we hopefully don't have major >>> autonomous decisions to make .. and if they exist, I believe, we should >>> try to revert back to the community, to the extent possible .. Yet, >>> having said that and within our administrative work, we may run into >>> different situations including: >>> >>> - All proposals received fit smoothly into one puzzle (theoretical best >>> case >>> scenario) >>> - Gaps/missing information needed to complete the consolidated proposal >>> (request missing information from the relevant community(ies)) >>> - Overlaps with different proposals sharing the same view (easy >>> administrative work to come up with a single draft) >>> - Overlaps where the different proposals received suggest >>> different/opposite views (I believe, this where we need to agree how to >>> handle) >>> - Other possible scenarios ?? >>> >>> Just thinking out loud .. >>> >>> Please note that I did some edits, marked in track changes, to >>> ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v2.doc (hope this is the right version) and >>> saved a new version with my initials appended .. I tried to >>> reduce/eliminate the words 'decision making', to the extent possible, in >>> order to avoid any misunderstanding with respect to ICG's limited role of >>> coordination .. I'm open to better language and flexible to revert back >>> to the original text if so agreed .. >>> >>> Finally I just want to note that this does not exclude that feedback from >>> the GAC may still be received when GAC discussions are concluded .. >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> --Manal >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] >>> On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour >>> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 2:48 AM >>> To: Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> as someone just coming back online, thanks to all who have been so >>> thoughtful (and active). >>> >>> I would really like to support Martin's points. Also noting, that if we >>> have substantial and consequential differences with respect to the final >>> proposal - there will not be any agreement (whether we vote or call >>> consensus). >>> >>> At the same time, it seems we might be slipping into thinking that we >>> will >>> have major autonomous decisions to make. Given our task is to >>> coordinate/assimilate proposals from 3 different communities (for largely >>> administrative work that is being done very well today), the main work of >>> reaching agreement should be in the communities. If there are >>> substantial differences, they will have to sort them out at the source. >>> >>> What am I mis-understanding? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Lynn >>> >>> >>> On Aug 15, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Joe, >>>> >>>> I am concerned by the return to the idea of supermajorities overruling >>>> significantly affected parties. I do not like recourse to voting (for >>>> reasons that I have already explained), and certainly not when it can >>>> be used to overrule legitimate concerns. >>>> >>>> First, I agree with your division between non-substantial (those not >>>> related to the final proposal, but focussed on our ways of working, >>>> charter, even the RFP) and the substantial (related to proposals). >>>> >>>> For your hyper-majority proposal (which reminds me of EU formulae for >>>> Council decisions - and that's not an accolade!), what is the >>>> percentage? >>>> I gave some thresholds in my original mail on this issue. What >>>> happens if one of the dissenting organisations were to be the gTLDs? >>>> Or the ccTLDs? >>>> (Interestingly, I don't think such a mess would happen in the case for >>>> numbers or protocols.) >>>> >>>> And being voted against won't solve the problem because you won't have >>>> addressed the specific concerns of the beaten party who would then >>>> lobby against the solution showing that we do not have a consensus >>>> proposal. >>>> >>>> Essentially, I see a distinct risk of a formulaic approach leading to >>>> a risk of marginalising particular interests simply because they don't >>>> fit the model others might prefer. >>>> >>>> I would note that the role of the ICG is to represent the wider >>>> community. >>>> However, we are not elected by them, but appointed by our communities >>>> and accountability to those communities. The chair's role is to try >>>> to pull together consensus, ensuring that serious concerns are >>>> properly considered and that the output is something that works for >>>> all and where there are appropriate safeguards. I agree that the >>>> discussion can't keep going around in loops (hence the need for us to >>>> justify our positions) and sometimes there will be a final dissenting >>>> voice who does need to be given a say in the final document. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] >>>> On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff >>>> Sent: 14 August 2014 20:07 >>>> To: internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Colleagues: >>>> >>>> Perhaps we can consider a different dividing line on consensus. I >>>> would suggest that we have two main buckets, that which is related to >>>> a proposal and that which is related to our operations. For >>>> operations 2/3 of those expressing an opinion is sufficient to arrive >>>> at decisions, but for issues related to proposals we need more than >>>> 2/3 (other percent?) of all members with no more than 2 participating >>>> organizations dissenting. The role of the chair would thus be >>>> constrained by rules regarding when consensus is achieved, but the >>>> chair would have the ability to manage discussion or call for a formal >>>> vote if they believed it would help move us towards consensus. >>>> >>>> Slightly less complex and perhaps more action-oriented. >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> On 8/14/2014 2:26 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: >>>> Agree. "Consensus" is not equivalent to "Unanimity." >>>> >>>> J. >>>> >>>> >>>> From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> >>>> Date: Thursday, August 14, 2014 at 13:10 >>>> To: ICG List <internal-cg(a)icann.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Just so I'm clear... >>>> >>>> Looking ahead....if we end up with 29 ICG reps in favor of a final >>>> recommendation and one person who unreasonably refuses to compromise, >>>> will that be deemed "consensus" or "no consensus?" >>>> >>>> Hypothetically speaking, if one holdout among us can obstruct a >>>> decision that has received support from all other members, and would >>>> prevent delivery of a recommendation....I find that very troubling. >>>> >>>> Keith >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] >>>> On Behalf Of WUKnoben >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 1:47 PM >>>> To: Kavouss Arasteh >>>> Cc: Coordination Group >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Dear Kavouss, >>>> >>>> you make the same point I expressed by saying that "I'm still >>>> uncertain with "non-substantive" issues which level of substance may >>>> depend on different views". I would welcome you providing other more >>>> useful criteria to decide in which rare cases a "poll" or "voting" >>>> could apply. >>>> >>>> As you may have seen in my latest draft I removed the "adjectives" >>>> from consensus. So I would appreciate your written suggestion for an >>>> acceptable text that I could better understand your disagreement with >>>> the present proposal. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>> >>>> >>>> From:Kavouss Arasteh >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:22 PM >>>> To: WUKnoben >>>> Cc:Milton L Mueller ; Martin Boyle ; Coordination Group >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> I am not comfortable to any of these measures. >>>> The more we discuss and analyze ,the more problem is created. >>>> I strongly disagree to make any discrimination among the contstituent >>>> groups in ICG ,WHEN IT IS PROPOSED qUOTE "For substantive issues, at >>>> least none of the "customer groups" (numbers, protocols, gTLDs or >>>> ccTLDs) of the IANA remains strongly opposed" >>>> What is considered by someone " substantive" may be considered by >>>> others " >>>> non substantive, >>>> NO ADJECTIVE FOR OPPOSITION .NO ADJECTIVE FOR SCONSENSUS. >>>> If you want instead of making progress to draft another chatter or >>>> convention for decision making ,I disagree with that . >>>> It ios incumbent to the chair and the two vice chairs to make utmost >>>> efforts to build consensus- Pls end this discussion Regards Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-08-14 18:32 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>: >>>> Thanks all for your valuable input. >>>> >>>> Milton is right calling for verbal clarity. But differentation is also >>>> needed and there are different approaches to achieve it. And as I said >>>> before the suggestion so far was based on GNSO habit. >>>> >>>> I tried to accomodate the discussion and therefore suggest to >>>> differentiate between "recommendation by consensus" (highest level, >>>> 100%) and "recommendation" (all remaining discussion results leading >>>> to a recommendation). >>>> >>>> I agree to all basic principles Martin came up with and incorporated >>>> them. >>>> I'm still uncertain with "non-substantive" issues which level of >>>> substance may depend on different views. >>>> >>>> I would appreciate further fruitful discussion on the list and we will >>>> hopefully see an end at our call next week. >>>> >>>> See my edits attached. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>> >>>> >>>> From:Milton L Mueller >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 8:12 PM >>>> To: 'Martin Boyle' ; Coordination Group >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> I think Martin makes very good points here. >>>> I like his proposed principles, every one of them. >>>> >>>> I must confess that I have been wincing at the way the word >>>> "consensus" is (ab)used routinely in these circles. Either it is truly >>>> consensus, and everyone either agrees or agrees not to object, or it is >>>> _something else_. >>>> Will we please stop trying to apply the term "consensus" to >>>> supermajority voting processes? My academic commitment to verbal >>>> clarity and directness is screaming at me that this is wrong. >>>> >>>> The IETF concept of "rough" consensus is an informal mechanism that is >>>> suitable for a more homogeneous environment in which adherence to >>>> standards is voluntary anyway, but in an environment with binding >>>> outcomes and political factions, it can and, in the ICANN context, >>>> frequently HAS merely provided a rationalization for ignoring >>>> significant minority points of view. >>>> --MM >>>> >>>> From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org >>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Martin Boyle >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:24 PM >>>> To: Coordination Group >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> First thanks to Wolf-Ulrich for his paper. I greatly like the idea of >>>> standards of good behaviour and mutual respect - and I'm pleased to >>>> see that this is already very much the framework for the way that the >>>> ICG works. I'd also note that the analysis of shades of grey in >>>> levels of support is interesting - was it Patrik who first noted the >>>> two extremes (non-substantial and substantial issues) and the level of >>>> consensus that might be needed? I'm just not sure I know how to use >>>> them... >>>> >>>> I'd firmly endorse the aim that "the ICG ... reach at least Consensus >>>> on the Proposal for the IANA Stewardship Transition to be forwarded to >>>> the NTIA" subject to our continued effort to try to achieve >>>> full/unanimous consensus or (at least) to have addressed address points >>>> of concern. >>>> >>>> However, I do not like processes that are supposed to be by consensus >>>> being resolved by voting (cf WCIT): voting leaves winners and losers. >>>> It also means that people get lazy and fail to look for compromise or >>>> common ground or ways to address "reasonable" concerns. That aversion >>>> is not really addressed by supermajorities: even at an 80% >>>> supermajority, all the domain name registries or all the government >>>> representatives or all GNSO members could be overruled. At 85% all >>>> the ccTLD registries, at 90% all the gTLD registries could be ignored. >>>> >>>> I do recognise the need for a mechanism that allows us to come to a >>>> final recommendation and I'm afraid that I do not see any magic wand. >>>> But I would suggest a number of basic principles: >>>> >>>> · The aim of the discussion should be to try to find a solution >>>> where *no member of the ICG still maintains serious opposition to the >>>> outcome.* Reasons for objections should be given, allowing the ICG >>>> wherever possible to try to address those concerns. >>>> >>>> · *Recourse to any form of voting should be the exception.* >>>> Its >>>> use might be fine for non-substantive issues. For substantive issues, >>>> at least none of the "customer groups" (numbers, protocols, gTLDs or >>>> ccTLDs) of the IANA remains strongly opposed. >>>> >>>> · Group members who still have problems with the evaluation >>>> should >>>> be invited to *identify possible ways in which the proposal could be >>>> modified to make it acceptable to them.* >>>> >>>> · Discussions should continue until *no "IANA customer" group >>>> is >>>> firmly opposed.* >>>> >>>> >>>> One final point: I would be willing to allow anyone who feels that >>>> they have not been heard to put a minority view into the final report. >>>> I'd rather that did not happen, but if the views are strong enough, it >>>> would be best to have then documented in the report than to be first >>>> aired in the discussion that follows the publication of our final >>>> report. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org >>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >>>> Sent: 11 August 2014 20:48 >>>> To: Drazek, Keith >>>> Cc: Coordination Group >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> Undoubtedly, it would be super majority either 2/3 or 4/5 . >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-08-11 18:18 GMT+02:00 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>: >>>> I agree that we will need a clear process for determining consensus >>>> that falls somewhere on the spectrum between humming and requiring a >>>> unanimous vote. >>>> >>>> If we get in to discussions of voting, we'll also need to address the >>>> thresholds required to establish consensus. Is it a simple majority? >>>> Super-majority? Unanimous voting is an unhelpful requirement that >>>> would likely obstruct our work and our ability to deliver, so I >>>> believe that should be a non-starter for the ICG. We need to avoid the >>>> possibility of one dissenting vote undermining an otherwise strongly >>>> supported recommendation that represents broad community consensus. >>>> >>>> However, if/when there is not full consensus, it will be important >>>> that we have a mechanism for expressing dissenting opinions. The GNSO >>>> Registries Stakeholder Group employs a "minority statement" mechanism >>>> to allow for all views to be expressed when there is consensus but not >>>> unanimity on a particular topic. Perhaps we should consider a similar >>>> mechanism for the ICG. >>>> >>>> Keith >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques >>>> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 AM >>>> To: Kavouss Arasteh >>>> Cc: Coordination Group >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Hello Colleagues, >>>> >>>> From the experience of the past few weeks, unfortunately we can >>>> conclude that the current process is not successful. Rather than >>>> meting out blame or praise, we need to understand why it's not >>>> working. Group dynamics and a bit of sociology can help. >>>> >>>> Our Coordination Group is different from what some of us/you have come >>>> to consider as "normal". The technical bodies (IETF, IAB) have >>>> developed an efficient process where "rough consensus" is understood >>>> and accepted. But other components of the ICG have different habits, >>>> and also a different accountability mechanism: however attractive >>>> "rough" may be, it is insufficient. For example, the GAC has its own >>>> rules (a joint position can only be reached by unanimity), and the >>>> ALAC routinely conducts all its votes on a full-membership basis (each >>>> member has to say ay, nay, abstain, or be noted down as not having cast >>>> a vote). >>>> >>>> So the challenge is this: is the "rough consensus" really adapted to >>>> all the needs of our group? With the experience gained collectively in >>>> London, and especially since then, I would recommend a dual approach: >>>> >>>> A/ MATTERS REQUIRING ALL MEMBERS TO VOTE (typically, to be decided as >>>> soon as possible, with the exception of our Transition plan) >>>> - Chair structure and membership, >>>> - Charter of the ICG, >>>> - choice of Secretariat (ICANN or outside of ICANN, or a mixture of >>>> both), >>>> - choice of near-final drafts and approval of final draft of our >>>> Transition plan, before presentation to the NTIA. >>>> >>>> B/ MATTERS WHERE OTHER FORMS OF DECISION-MAKING ARE ACCEPTABLE >>>> - Appraisal of specific community input, as a contribution to the >>>> ICG's recommended plan (e.g. ALAC should appraise input from its own >>>> community before submitting it to the whole ICG), >>>> - external relations and communications of the ICG (once the Chair >>>> structure has been chosen and populated, it may wish to ask Chair, or >>>> another of its members, to be the point of contact), >>>> - administrative & logistic matters, in conjunction with the chosen >>>> Secretariat (here too, delegation would be possible). >>>> >>>> I'm prepared to provide a more detailed proposal for the above items. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Jean-Jacques. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> >>>> À: "Patrik Fältström" <paf(a)frobbit.se> >>>> Cc: "Coordination Group" <internal-cg(a)icann.org> >>>> Envoyé: Lundi 11 Août 2014 10:40:08 >>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Wolf >>>> Thank you very much for reply >>>> My point is that if one or more ICG Mmember(s) is7are againszt the >>>> ruling of the Chir ,They could raise their issue and the matter must >>>> be settled by simple explanation or if not resolved by voting . I.E. >>>> CHAIR DOES NOT HAVE DECISION MAKING POWER ON HE OR HIS OWN WISHES >>>> RATHER TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT VIEWS OF MEMBERS Regards KAVOUSS Regards >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-08-11 8:33 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström < paf(a)frobbit.se > : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11 aug 2014, at 08:09, WUKnoben < wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The chair's designation that consensus is reached is not her/his own >>>>> decision rather than a wrap-up of extensive discussions. Of course >>>>> this designation can be challenged by members. And this is what >>>>> triggers your question about "If several participants in the ICG >>>>> disagree with the designation given ...". I'm open to any helpful >>>>> suggestion on how we could procede in such a case. >>>>> In the end consensus - as defined - has to be achieved. >>>> >>>> Let me emphasize what you say here, which I strongly agree with. >>>> >>>> We must deliver. >>>> >>>> This implies we must be able to reach consensus. >>>> >>>> The last couple of weeks discussions on various topics makes me a bit >>>> pessimistic on the ability for us to reach consensus, but I am >>>> optimistic, always optimistic, on peoples ability and interest in >>>> actually deliver. >>>> >>>> Remember that the chair is calling on the consensus question, not the >>>> substance. That way the power of the chair is decreased to a minimum >>>> and process issues. >>>> >>>> Patrik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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

Charter comments summary
by Jari Arkko Aug. 28, 2014

Aug. 28, 2014

I added new files to the dropbox, a suggested edit of the charter and a summary/analysis/recommendation regarding the comments that we have received. As you remember, we called for major objections, so I have been rather critical in what suggestions I recommended as being adopted. Please comment; we are discussing this soon on our call. Also, if you are aware of comments that I have missed (perhaps in your community), let me know. I’ll include the PDF versions below. Jari

5 7

Timeline version 2
by Russ Housley Aug. 27, 2014

Aug. 27, 2014

Please find the attached documents. The Word document describe the steps. The Excel spreadsheet demonstrates the overlap between the steps. Russ

3 2

RFP: IANA Definition
by Daniel Karrenberg Aug. 27, 2014

Aug. 27, 2014

Coming back to the discussion on yesterday's call: We should refer to source documents in the RFP and not secondary documents. NB: I totally respect the work of RSSAC on RSSAC067 and it is a great help. It just does not feel right to use it as a normative reference. So I propose adding a footnote at the first occurrence of "IANA" like this: In this RFP "IANA" refers to the functions currently specified in the agreement between NTIA and ICANN [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order] as well as any other functions traditionally performed by the IANA functions operator. SSAC067 [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf] may be useful reading in addition to the documents constituting the agreement itself. And then replace "IANA" with "IANA functions operator" wherever that adds clarity. Can I have feedback on this? Daniel

3 4

SUBSTANTIVE: RFP Timing
by Daniel Karrenberg Aug. 27, 2014

Aug. 27, 2014

[I am sorry but I must have missed the consensus call on publishing the RFP before the IGF. Am I the only one?] I was surprised that a lot of you expressed that you want to publish the RFP before the IGF even though our call uncovered that the text is not final today. So there will be changes. Whatever one might think about the substance of those, there will be a new text which we will have to agree on. So I must raise the question of how we agree on the final text as a group. What will be the mechanism for agreement and the time involved? I suggested to do this at the next f2f meeting because it does not seem practical to me to achieve agreement by another mechanism before that meeting. If we can agree on another mechanism that works faster, all the better! Not using a mechanism that clearly establishes agreement is what I meant with "On the Fly!". I have no objections against sharing the current draft with anyone, including communities and IGF participants. I am not opposed to even publishing it as the current draft. But until we agree as a group it has to stay "draft". We could even say "Draft scheduled to be agreed on September 6th" if we want to stress it is pretty stable. So how are we going to agree on the final text? Daniel

5 6

Call #3 Archives
by Alice Jansen Aug. 27, 2014

Aug. 27, 2014

Dear ICG Members, You may find the following call #3 materials on your archives page at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-archives-2014-07-31-en * Chat transcript - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-chat-icg-26aug14-en.… * EN recording - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-26aug14-en.mp3 * FR recording - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-26aug14-fr.mp3 * ES recording - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-26aug14-es.mp3 * RU recording - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-26aug14-ru.mp3 * PT recording - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-26aug14-pt.mp3 We will make sure to post items as we receive them from language services. Thank you Best regards Alice

1 0

FW: Further RFP revision
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 27, 2014

Aug. 27, 2014

Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ... On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Milton L Mueller >Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AM >To: 'Alissa Cooper'; internal-cg(a)icann.org >Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision > >Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here. > >I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs contain >language that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings and >thus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause us >trouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and delete >the other. > >Here is an exegesis: > >From the middle of paragraph 1: > >"Other parties may provide comments to the ICG on particular aspects that >may be covered by proposals that may be of significant interest to them, >for review by the ICG as time and resources permit. The ICG will direct >comments received from other parties to the relevant operational >communities as appropriate." > >Paragraph 2: > >"During the development of their proposals, the operational communities >are expected to consult and work with other affected parties; likewise, >other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate in >community processes, as the ICG is requiring proposals that have >consensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups." > >My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as to >not confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2. > >As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties to >provide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that are >being considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems to >invite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being considered >by the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consider >alternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreed >proposals. > >Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages" >affected parties to participate in the operational community process for >the same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but it >does not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternative >proposals where consensus is not possible. > >I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 are >articulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP to >be released with such a critical ambiguity in it. > >I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy source >and the second bullet point under IIB > >I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point is >that various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding or >separating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can’t use the >existing method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply asking >them to explain the implications of their changes for existing policy >arrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because it >says almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do we >need it at all? > >Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a parallel >universe the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiar >with as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal and >institutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimate >based on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical and >operational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk about >pre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to >"test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some other >accountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I have >altered the language to deal with this. > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PM >> To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision >> >> I took one more stab at this — v10 attached and uploaded. >> >> There was some new text in v09(jha) about how people should feel free >> to comment to us about transparency, completeness, etc. I think that >> is true as a general matter, but that is not what we are asking for >>specifically in this RFP. >> That is what we will ask for — from anyone who cares to answer — after >> we have the proposal components submitted (by December :)). >> So I removed that text. >> >> I also found the new first paragraph quite confusing — it said we are >> issuing this RFP “for consideration” by all parties, which makes it >> sound like we’re asking people to comment on the RFP itself, rather >> than submit proposals. So, I did some editing on the first two >> paragraphs, and also tried to work in the good suggestion from Manal >> that we re-emphasize that we will direct comments to the operational >> communities where we can. Here is how the first two paragraphs read now: >> >> "The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is seeking >> complete formal responses to this Request for Proposals (RFP) from the >> “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational >> or service relationships with IANA; namely names, numbers, protocol >> parameters). Other interested and affected parties are strongly >> encouraged to provide their inputs through open processes run by these >> operational communities. Other parties may provide comments to the >> ICG on particular aspects that may be covered by proposals that may be >> of significant interest to them, for review by the ICG as time and >> resources permit. The ICG will direct comments received from other >>parties to the relevant operational communities as appropriate. >> >> During the development of their proposals, the operational communities >> are expected to consult and work with other affected parties; >> likewise, other affected parties are strongly encouraged to >> participate in community processes, as the ICG is requiring proposals >> that have consensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups.” >> >> In section 0, I edited “change” to “address” in "Identify which >> category of the IANA functions this submission proposes to change” >> since some communities might propose no changes. >> >> In section 4 I still think there are three bullet points that need >> elaboration, of just one sentence each, because they are not clear on >>their face: >> >> ·Continuity of service requirements >> ·Risks >> ·Service integration aspects >> >> >> For example, “Risks” seems so vague that each community could write a >> novel about them and not be complete. What are we really looking for >>here? >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> On 8/19/14, 8:50 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> >>wrote: >> >> >I have uploaded v9(jha) with a few suggested edits to further clarify >> >the operational vs impacted communities comment process... Also a >> >question of whether testing should be limited to Section III - are >> >those the only changes contemplated that could impact stability and >> >functionality? >> > >> >I think we are getting pretty close to a final draft... >> > >> >Joe >> >On 8/19/2014 11:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Paul: >> >> Done. It is uploaded as docx as version 09. Also proposed some >> >>minor clarity changes to the preamble and added a comment responding >> >>to Martin's nervousness. We can't have Martin being nervous. >> >> >> >> Milton L Mueller >> >> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University >> >> School of Information Studies >> >> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- >> >>> bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:05 AM >> >>> To: ICG >> >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision >> >>> >> >>> Milton, thanks for your comments on the "section 0" part. this >> >>>adds some needed clarity about the whole orientation of this >>process. >> >>> >> >>> If you can, please make further edits to the version 8 document >> >>> linked below. >> >>> >> >>> Paul. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 19 Aug 2014, at 9:30 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson(a)apnic.net> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Apologies for the delay, a new RFP revision is now online: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP% >> >>> 20v08.docx >> >>>> >> >>>> Paul >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson(a)apnic.net> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Dear all, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I am in the process of reconciling all inputs on the latest RFP >> >>>>>document, >> >>> and will have a clean version available in Dropbox shortly. >> >>>>> My intention is to go run this document sequentially during >> >>>>> tonight's >> >>> meeting, seeking ICG members' views and suggestions. >> >>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 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 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> 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 >

14 23

Further RFP revision
by Paul Wilson Aug. 27, 2014

Aug. 27, 2014

Dear all, I am in the process of reconciling all inputs on the latest RFP document, and will have a clean version available in Dropbox shortly. My intention is to go run this document sequentially during tonight’s meeting, seeking ICG members’ views and suggestions. Thanks, 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

8 12

Centralized information portal
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 26, 2014

Aug. 26, 2014

We have talked now and again about providing a centralized web site where anyone could go to find information about all of the community processes where transition work is taking place. I’m wondering if we could start standing this up before the IGF so that we have a place to point people to when we’re there. >From the protocol parameters side, the IETF already has a dedicated page with most of the relevant links: <http://www.ietf.org/iana-transition.html>. Perhaps the one missing link is the draft charter of the IETF working group that is forming to work on the transition proposal: <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/>. We could copy those two links over to the centralized portal or take some selection of the ones on the dedicated page and post them on the portal page. I know there are similar pages some of the RIRs are using (e.g., <http://www.lacnic.net/pt/web/lacnic/iana-transicion>). Do the RIR folks think we could gather up the right links and information within a week or so? Could the folks participating in the CCWG on the names side do the same? And any others who are participating in other processes that have been started? Do the secretariat folks think we could get a simple page stood up with separate sections for these links and information next week? Thanks, Alissa

6 7