- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

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

Rép: RE: Rép: Re: Appointment of Alissa Cooper as chair of ICG
by jjs July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014

Milton, assuredly, the representatives of the ALAC would have that capacity. But you do understand the desire of the ALAC to clarify and settle questions of principle before detail. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> a écrit : >Jean-Jacques >In line with my earlier comments about representation, I would hope that the ALAC would delegate to you the ability to make decisions about procedural matters. >--MM > >-----Original Message----- >From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of jjs >Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 9:32 AM >To: Patrik Fältström >Cc: ICG Internal >Subject: [Internal-cg] Rép: Re: Appointment of Alissa Cooper as chair of ICG > >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 Fältströ

1 0