On 4.08.14 11:53 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Alissa, Dear All Many of you and in fact all of you are right with some slight clarification First of all ,I agree with richard that the three entities already mentioned in the previous draft arae not the only constituencies of INTERNET MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH referred to other stakeholders . We have to consult them. It is rather very restrictive if we only consult those three Patrik is also right to be worried about a precooked approach I have told many times that the legitimacy of stakeholders commenting on the process to be clarified..If someone Under the name of stakeholder ,speaks on his or her behalf ,it does not reflect any views of stakehioldr but views of individual which should be considered on its value and merit I still see some defficiencies in identifying those who should be consulted , certainly they are not limited to IETF, RIREs and ICANN. Please carefully consider the delicate and complex issue before us REGARDS ka.
2014-08-04 11:39 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>:
Thanks Joseph, Patrik and Adiel for this exchange and the important points raised ..
I believe 2 key success factors here would be: 1. Timely and clear communications to clarify the process and guide the submissions .. 2. Allowing time to go through several consultation iterations with the community, along the lines suggested by Joseph, to further ensure not only broader consensus of the final consolidated proposal but also trust in the followed process ..
More concretely, I suggest: 1. In addition to, requesting the three proposals from the three communities (Joseph point 1 below) (through the draft led by Paul), 2. that we also post a clear guideline communication for communities other than the 3 above to: 2.1 encourage them to contribute their views through any of the 3 above mentioned communities .. and post all relevant information regarding their consultation processes (for example: email addresses to submit comments, websites, contact persons, group leads, current drafts, ...?) 2.2 encourage consolidated, broadly supported proposals 2.3 encourage community members to attribute themselves to any submitted proposal they fully agree to, rather than submitting a new one 2.4 clarify, if yet clear to us, ICG approach in consolidating and integrating submitted proposals, for instance, in case of conflicting views are we going to add both views and start a new consultation iteration? Are we going to choose only one? Which one? the more broadly supported? those submitted through stakeholder groups and/or cross community working groups? individual creative/out-of the-box submissions? Of course whatever the approach is, we will be making community consultation iterations, along the lines suggested by Joseph below .. 2.4' Alternatively, as I have just read in a recent message, we may agree to suggest that in order not to take on a greater decision-making role, that the community comments on proposals from the 3 above mentioned communities (if this is what we agree to do) ..
In summary, I think it is most important that we discuss, make sure we agree and have a common understanding (if we are not, how can we expect the community to be clear about the process), post this suggested process/approach online, seek community feedback, set a deadline, and fine tune the process accordingly ..
Thanks again for this useful discussion ..
Kind Regards --Manal
Kavouss, Manal, the charter and the RFP together should speak to all these points and I believe we have touched on most of them in our discussions in London. So I suggest that we work on the text of these two documents making sure that all important points are covered. Daniel