I agree to the proposed process. I am a participant of the cross-community working group developing a names proposal as well as the CCWG-ICANN Accountability. No participation in the number or protocol parameter process. I’d like to volunteer in the assessment of either numbers or protocol proposals and of the names proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 11:30 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh ; Milton L Mueller Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process I know nothing about the Numbers work .. Despite joining the mailing list, I was not able to follow the Protocols work .. I follow closely the Names work and Accountability discussions and contribute views through GAC discussions and other GAC representatives .. Kind regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 5:40 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process Alissa, I am volunteer to take care of accountabilty part of the transition function . I would be happy to work with whoever is voluteering on that matter Kavouss 2015-01-10 16:38 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: A 2015-01-09 16:05 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>: I will respond with the following disclosures: I am on the ARIN Advisory Council and thus play a role in the numbers world, but other than urging the NRO to work through a global committee rather than regional ones, I have not followed or participated in the numbers (CRISP) work either at the regional or global level. I hold Executive Committee position within the GNSO Noncommercial Stakeholders Group and am an active participant in the names CWG. I followed the IANAPlan IETF fairly actively but on the whole was a marginal(ized) participant. Using Patrik's useful template, I am: - Outsider for the numbers work - Insider for the names work - Follower of and commentator on the protocols work
-----Original Message-----
- Passive follower of the protocol work
- Outsider for the numbers work
- Insider regarding the names work
Patrik
On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly- finalization-24dec14-en.pdf
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg