- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

RFP released?
by Milton L Mueller Sept. 8, 2014

Sept. 8, 2014

I did not see that the RFP was released today, did I miss something? Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
by Joseph Alhadeff Sept. 8, 2014

Sept. 8, 2014

This was a good summary. Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal(a)tra.gov.eg] Received: Sunday, 07 Sep 2014, 6:31AM To: Mary Uduma [mnuduma(a)yahoo.com] Jari Arkko [jari.arkko(a)piuha.net] Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com] CC: ICG [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All .. As one of those who have attended the 'consensus building' discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities) ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: 1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' 4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted. Safe trip everyone. Mary Uduma On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma(a)yahoo.com> wrote: OOOOsh!!!! Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. Please ignore my last unfinished mail. Mary On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net> wrote: And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

2 4

ICANN Accountability Track - Update
by Drazek, Keith Sept. 7, 2014

Sept. 7, 2014

All, Per our discussion today, here’s the latest development on the ICANN Accountability Track. A 21-day public comment period has been opened seeking community input on the suggested process. Announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-08-2014-09-05-en Public Comment Details: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-09-05-en Regards, Keith #2 Drazek “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

3 2

Timeline v5
by Russ Housley Sept. 7, 2014

Sept. 7, 2014

3 3

Re: [Internal-cg] ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v5 + MBv6 of KA 04 SEPT 20124 + MB (1) + WUK_acc
by Kavouss Arasteh Sept. 6, 2014

Sept. 6, 2014

Dear All, After the ICG meeting of 06 Sept. 11 ICG Members got together and discussed a way forward to resolve the divergence views on " consensus building document" Based on the proposal made by me and discussed the last version of the document prepared by wolf is amended as attached Pls kindly have a look and make every possible efforts to resolve the pending matter Kavouss 2014-09-06 18:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg>: > Please find attached as requested .. > > Kind Regards > > --Manal >

1 0

Conflic of Interest related docuemnts
by Adiel Akplogan Sept. 6, 2014

Sept. 6, 2014

Hello all, Here is the general ICANN Conflicts of Interest Policy (Adopted on 6 May 2012): https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coi-2012-02-25-en, and attached is the specific Contractor Conflict of Interest policy that comes with the RfP package. As I mentioned, we will take the particular issue re conflict of interest within the context of ICG up within the sub-group and with the ICANN legal/procurement team. Thanks. - a.

2 2

Re: [Internal-cg] Conflic of Interest related docuemnts
by Mohamed El Bashir Sept. 6, 2014

Sept. 6, 2014

Hi Adiel, after reviewing the ICANN conflict of internet policy, i am fine with proceed and publishing the RFP. in the proposals revaluation process we can raise any conflict of interest issues identified. . Regards, Mohamed On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn(a)lstamour.org> wrote: > Thank you Adiel, this is helpful. > > Given this is part of the full Secretariat RFP package, I am OK with > posting the RFP and only ask that Joe's comment be taken into account. To > be clear, I am comfortable with the work done to date by both the ICG and > the sub-group and do not need to see the fully formatted RFP. > > I also note that knowing of this document earlier in the discussion today, > would have shortened it quite significantly (comment meant only as a group > learning). > > Best, > > Lynn > > On Sep 6, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Adiel Akplogan <adiel(a)afrinic.net> wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > Here is the general ICANN Conflicts of Interest Policy (Adopted on 6 May > 2012): > > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coi-2012-02-25-en, > > > > and attached is the specific Contractor Conflict of Interest policy that > comes with the RfP package. > > > > As I mentioned, we will take the particular issue re conflict of > interest within the context of ICG up within the sub-group and with the > ICANN legal/procurement team. > > > > Thanks. > > > > - a. > > > > <4. ICANN'S CONTRACTOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE (v December > 2013).doc> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

Timeline v4
by Russ Housley Sept. 6, 2014

Sept. 6, 2014

3 3

Announcement
by Jon Nevett Sept. 6, 2014

Sept. 6, 2014

Paul: Some suggested changes in the attached. Best, Jon

4 3

Open operational community processes
by Milton L Mueller Sept. 6, 2014

Sept. 6, 2014

This is the same as my last message, but I changed the header (which I should have done last time). If you want to respond to me, please respond to this message not the other one. > -----Original Message----- > Since then we've brought the draft RFP into our community, and the > community is now busy working on an actual proposal. > The first draft of that proposal is out. I think the IETF's questions > about this topic are more in the proposal itself, and something we can > work on ourselves, and at I have a bit of a problem with this, sorry to say. While I think it's fine that people in IETF are developing ideas for proposals, the RFP makes it clear that the process in each operational community is supposed to be open and transparent, and include other interested and affected parties. I think it would be a travesty if we release the RFP and the IETF announces 5 days later that they are finished. Even if this is presented as a "Draft," any different ideas coming from the outside would be dealing with what is in effect a sealed process, in which changes would not be welcome or even seriously considered. The IETF needs to convene a publicly announced, open process based on the RFP that we are developing. --MM _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

3 2