Here is some revised landing page text that tries to capture the
discussion in this thread:

===

ICG Charter Open for Public Comments

On July 18, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)
produced a draft charter <link> that defines its own tasks. The ICG views
defining the broad outlines of its charter as important, but it views
finalizing the charter and moving on to the real work of the transition
planning to be of equal importance. Thus the ICG is opening up a short
public comment period on the charter to determine if there are any major
objections to the current draft that the ICG has not already taken into
account.

The charter is open for public comment until August XX, 2014 at 20:00 UTC.
Public comments are considered to be for the public record, and for the
information and consideration of all participants in this process, not
just for the ICG. Everyone is encouraged to review any public comments
that may be submitted via the process below.

Public comment submission process links:

Comment submission: <link>
List of comments submitted via this site: <link>
Charter: <link>
Deadline: August XX, 2014 at 20:00 UTC


===

On 8/6/14, 9:16 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" <adiel@afrinic.net> wrote:

On Aug 6, 2014, at 19:52 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Adiel and I may agree on the confusing nature of the message, but I

think our responses point in opposite directions.

:-) let try to bring them back to the same direction. In fact I’m not

requesting that we necessarily have a round of comment period at all. I’m

just questioning the process. If we are to have a public comment period

why not be the direct input point ourselves (use the interim secretariat

to handle that) rather than adding an additional layer using respective

community discussion process? How are these feedbacks going to be

consolidated and pass on to us in the short window we have? Each

community will request time to define process by which they manage their

comments and consolidate them … etc … We know it work in our environment.

My view was that we should be consistent about relying on the community

representatives instead of another ICANN-administered comment period - I

believe this is appropraite for the charter ONLY.  We should not provide

an opportunity for dozens of many random emails and a bunch of formal

comments wordsmithing the draft via a comment list. We lack the time and

resources to process a bunch of written comments and still make progress

on the other things.  Instead, we should encourage people to review the

draft and convey any major concerns they have about the charter to their

representatives on the ICG. I think the charter needs to be finalized

asap and we need to concentrate on actually doing our job.

The charter as it now exists has roots in a prior comment period on the

composition and scope of the ICG. I think we have the authority to

finalize that process ourselves. The process of drafting the charter was

highly transparent and the draft has been out there in front of our

communities for three weeks now.

I’m globally in agreement with you on the above. But when we release our

set of documents after London we mentioned that they are published for

comments (and many from the community ask about the process for such

comments period). We could have then give a very short windows not more

than a week to collect comments and by now finalise the Charter

ourselves. Now that we have kind of miss that opportunity we need to find

the most optimum way to get it done quickly (without diluting the

quality).

Asking for a comment period on the charter essentially turns the clock

back to July 18 and freezes our activity for a month on all other fronts

if we are to be really consistent about the fact that we don’t have a

charter yet.

Agree.

I also think it is confusing to position ourselves in a  strange middle

ground in which we are asking for formal wrirtten comments on a list but

telling people we don’t want to make major changes.

Agree.

Either we are opening up the entire draft charter for comment,

criticism and redrafting, or we are saying that we basically have a

charter and asking whether anyone has major objections to it that we

haven't taken into account. I favor the latter approach.

I too will favor that.

- a.

-----Original Message-----

From: Adiel Akplogan [mailto:adiel@afrinic.net]

Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 10:31 AM

To: Milton L Mueller

Cc: Alissa Cooper; internal-cg@icann.org

Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Charter commenting

On Aug 6, 2014, at 16:37 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

I am not sure I understand this:

-----Original Message-----

It is the strong preference

of the ICG that comments about the charter from the public be

submitted via existing IANA-related community processes, and not

through the link provided below.

If we don't want people to provide comments through that link, why

provide the link? I suspect many people will be confused by this.

+1.

In fact I'm wondering why do we want to make this particular comment

related to the ICG organisation diffuse through the community process

(sorry

but I may have missed a discussion on this while offline)?

- a.

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg