I had sent this in the email about updated deadlines, but did not receive any feedback about it: == Charter == Originally I think we were hoping to have received all charter comments roughly by Aug 1. Mohamed has made a proposal that we setup an explicit mechanism to solicit community feedback on the charter and announce a clear deadline for comments. I have not seen anyone oppose this proposal. So my suggestion is that I work with the secretariat to get an email alias (not a mailing list) up and running where community members can send comments if they are not able to convey them via an ICG member (which I still think is the preferred approach in general for charter comments). Comments sent to this alias would be directly reflected on a web page that we can setup. Assuming we can get this working by July 31, I suggest that we announce an Aug 8 deadline for charter comments. This is not a lengthy period of time but I think we had a general sense that it’s most important to get the broad outlines of the charter right rather than spending weeks on the details, so hopefully this will be sufficient. ============= Alice has suggested that we could use a forum for this purpose, similar to the ones listed here: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/>. We could publish an announcement page that says that we are accepting public comments on the ICG charter, what the deadline is, a link to the charter, a link to the email alias to be used for comment submission, and a link to the forum page where comments will appear. Should we do this? How long of a comment period should we have? (I would say 7-10 days max, assuming we’re interested in major substantive comments and not lots of detailed nits.) Should we give any guidance about what kind of feedback we’re looking for? Thanks, Alissa
I have concerns about the overall process suggested. Originally we where hoping the various constituencies where to reach consensus on various things, and then pass it to us. That would of course not prohibit _individuals_ from sending comments to us of course. But, we would coordinate and draw conclusions on what proposals we find have the most support for. If we completely open the door, and even encourage, complete participation from anyone in the community, we will get a process like the 1Net mailing list, where I claim the majority of the feedback comes from various people that are to be honest quite non-constructive, repetitive and...well...not helpful. We should encourage bottom up processes, and not turn it into a top down process with consultation (where we are on the top). Maybe I am overly sensitive, and that for our _charter_ we should run the process this way. I am though asking myself whether the feedback will actually come from bottom up processes, or whether the feedback will come from various individuals that do have very specific ideas? Individuals that have time to spend, for various reasons. We will most certainly for example both get the (rough) consensus from such processes _and_ the proposals from whoever ended up being in the non-consensus part of the same process. How do we handle and even identify such situations? Should we listen to that view that is already sorted out in the bottom up processes we encourage? Who are we to decide? Once again, we should coordinate, not evaluate. Anyway, balancing the encouragement of time consuming bottom up processes against simple "open the door for everyone" is difficult, as as I write above we absolutely must allow anyone to send in comments. I just do not know how to manage the feedback. Specifically before we have a secretariat that can help us with compiling the feedback, sorting and understanding where the feedback is coming from. That said, for the charter, that decides how we should operate, we probably must do it this way. So to the questions, regarding a forum. Yes, I think we can use something like that. That uses email interface. We can not use any web forum (that have been experimented with by ICANN) that requires people to adhere to ICANN principles of any kind. Comment period, 7 days as you propose, but the announcement and last day should be Tue-Thu, based on the fact I do not think the end time should be on a weekend or first day of the week anywhere on the planet. Patrik On 1 aug 2014, at 19:25, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I had sent this in the email about updated deadlines, but did not receive any feedback about it:
== Charter == Originally I think we were hoping to have received all charter comments roughly by Aug 1. Mohamed has made a proposal that we setup an explicit mechanism to solicit community feedback on the charter and announce a clear deadline for comments. I have not seen anyone oppose this proposal. So my suggestion is that I work with the secretariat to get an email alias (not a mailing list) up and running where community members can send comments if they are not able to convey them via an ICG member (which I still think is the preferred approach in general for charter comments). Comments sent to this alias would be directly reflected on a web page that we can setup. Assuming we can get this working by July 31, I suggest that we announce an Aug 8 deadline for charter comments. This is not a lengthy period of time but I think we had a general sense that it’s most important to get the broad outlines of the charter right rather than spending weeks on the details, so hopefully this will be sufficient. =============
Alice has suggested that we could use a forum for this purpose, similar to the ones listed here: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/>. We could publish an announcement page that says that we are accepting public comments on the ICG charter, what the deadline is, a link to the charter, a link to the email alias to be used for comment submission, and a link to the forum page where comments will appear.
Should we do this?
How long of a comment period should we have? (I would say 7-10 days max, assuming we’re interested in major substantive comments and not lots of detailed nits.)
Should we give any guidance about what kind of feedback we’re looking for?
Thanks, Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I tend to agree with Patrik, though I am less worried about "various people." I think the chartering is just a first step to get the ICG going, and the basic role of the ICG is implicit in the documents and processes underlying its creation. The charter simply makes it all explicit. Our task is to get the thing going and not to spend 20% of our hopefully short lifespan discussing and debating our own charter. Unless we get serious and sustained objections to specific aspects of the draft from a broad spectrum of commentators from existing channels, I think we move ahead and reach consensus on the charter ourselves. I put the charter before my nominating group (the NCSG0 some time ago, and haven't heard any objections and have heard general satisfaction. GNSO people have a LOT of other things to comment upon, including the all-important CCWG that will develop a proposal for names, and imposing another comment period on the community when there is no indication that the draft charter is controversial or that the people on the ICG who drafted it are seriously misaligned with the wishes of their nominating communities strikes me as a waste of time. --MM
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Saturday, August 2, 2014 1:21 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Charter commenting
I have concerns about the overall process suggested.
Originally we where hoping the various constituencies where to reach consensus on various things, and then pass it to us. That would of course not prohibit _individuals_ from sending comments to us of course. But, we would coordinate and draw conclusions on what proposals we find have the most support for.
If we completely open the door, and even encourage, complete participation from anyone in the community, we will get a process like the 1Net mailing list, where I claim the majority of the feedback comes from various people that are to be honest quite non-constructive, repetitive and...well...not helpful.
We should encourage bottom up processes, and not turn it into a top down process with consultation (where we are on the top).
Maybe I am overly sensitive, and that for our _charter_ we should run the process this way.
I am though asking myself whether the feedback will actually come from bottom up processes, or whether the feedback will come from various individuals that do have very specific ideas? Individuals that have time to spend, for various reasons. We will most certainly for example both get the (rough) consensus from such processes _and_ the proposals from whoever ended up being in the non-consensus part of the same process.
How do we handle and even identify such situations? Should we listen to that view that is already sorted out in the bottom up processes we encourage? Who are we to decide? Once again, we should coordinate, not evaluate.
Anyway, balancing the encouragement of time consuming bottom up processes against simple "open the door for everyone" is difficult, as as I write above we absolutely must allow anyone to send in comments.
I just do not know how to manage the feedback. Specifically before we have a secretariat that can help us with compiling the feedback, sorting and understanding where the feedback is coming from.
That said, for the charter, that decides how we should operate, we probably must do it this way.
So to the questions, regarding a forum. Yes, I think we can use something like that. That uses email interface. We can not use any web forum (that have been experimented with by ICANN) that requires people to adhere to ICANN principles of any kind.
Comment period, 7 days as you propose, but the announcement and last day should be Tue-Thu, based on the fact I do not think the end time should be on a weekend or first day of the week anywhere on the planet.
Patrik
On 1 aug 2014, at 19:25, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I had sent this in the email about updated deadlines, but did not receive any feedback about it:
== Charter == Originally I think we were hoping to have received all charter comments roughly by Aug 1. Mohamed has made a proposal that we setup an explicit mechanism to solicit community feedback on the charter and announce a clear deadline for comments. I have not seen anyone oppose this proposal. So my suggestion is that I work with the secretariat to get an email alias (not a mailing list) up and running where community members can send comments if they are not able to convey them via an ICG member (which I still think is the preferred approach in general for charter comments). Comments sent to this alias would be directly reflected on a web page that we can setup. Assuming we can get this working by July 31, I suggest that we announce an Aug 8 deadline for charter comments. This is not a lengthy period of time but I think we had a general sense that it's most important to get the broad outlines of the charter right rather than spending weeks on the details, so hopefully this will be sufficient. =============
Alice has suggested that we could use a forum for this purpose, similar to the ones listed here: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/>. We could publish an announcement page that says that we are accepting public comments on the ICG charter, what the deadline is, a link to the charter, a link to the email alias to be used for comment submission, and a link to the forum page where comments will appear.
Should we do this?
How long of a comment period should we have? (I would say 7-10 days max, assuming we're interested in major substantive comments and not lots of detailed nits.)
Should we give any guidance about what kind of feedback we're looking for?
Thanks, Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I also favor the approach drafted in the recent charter. Nobody prevents other communities beside the three explicitly requested to put forward a proposal which is taken into consideration by the ICG (see Liaison b. "solicit broader input"). In addition paragraphs about e.g. the ICG leadership structure, secretariat as well as public relations should be included in the charter - once (rough) consensus is achieved. I've also asked the GNSO CSG (the group I'm representing on the ICG) for comments. So far nothing negative but still waiting for comments. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 12:04 AM To: Patrik Fältström ; Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Charter commenting I tend to agree with Patrik, though I am less worried about "various people." I think the chartering is just a first step to get the ICG going, and the basic role of the ICG is implicit in the documents and processes underlying its creation. The charter simply makes it all explicit. Our task is to get the thing going and not to spend 20% of our hopefully short lifespan discussing and debating our own charter. Unless we get serious and sustained objections to specific aspects of the draft from a broad spectrum of commentators from existing channels, I think we move ahead and reach consensus on the charter ourselves. I put the charter before my nominating group (the NCSG0 some time ago, and haven't heard any objections and have heard general satisfaction. GNSO people have a LOT of other things to comment upon, including the all-important CCWG that will develop a proposal for names, and imposing another comment period on the community when there is no indication that the draft charter is controversial or that the people on the ICG who drafted it are seriously misaligned with the wishes of their nominating communities strikes me as a waste of time. --MM
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Saturday, August 2, 2014 1:21 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Charter commenting
I have concerns about the overall process suggested.
Originally we where hoping the various constituencies where to reach consensus on various things, and then pass it to us. That would of course not prohibit _individuals_ from sending comments to us of course. But, we would coordinate and draw conclusions on what proposals we find have the most support for.
If we completely open the door, and even encourage, complete participation from anyone in the community, we will get a process like the 1Net mailing list, where I claim the majority of the feedback comes from various people that are to be honest quite non-constructive, repetitive and...well...not helpful.
We should encourage bottom up processes, and not turn it into a top down process with consultation (where we are on the top).
Maybe I am overly sensitive, and that for our _charter_ we should run the process this way.
I am though asking myself whether the feedback will actually come from bottom up processes, or whether the feedback will come from various individuals that do have very specific ideas? Individuals that have time to spend, for various reasons. We will most certainly for example both get the (rough) consensus from such processes _and_ the proposals from whoever ended up being in the non-consensus part of the same process.
How do we handle and even identify such situations? Should we listen to that view that is already sorted out in the bottom up processes we encourage? Who are we to decide? Once again, we should coordinate, not evaluate.
Anyway, balancing the encouragement of time consuming bottom up processes against simple "open the door for everyone" is difficult, as as I write above we absolutely must allow anyone to send in comments.
I just do not know how to manage the feedback. Specifically before we have a secretariat that can help us with compiling the feedback, sorting and understanding where the feedback is coming from.
That said, for the charter, that decides how we should operate, we probably must do it this way.
So to the questions, regarding a forum. Yes, I think we can use something like that. That uses email interface. We can not use any web forum (that have been experimented with by ICANN) that requires people to adhere to ICANN principles of any kind.
Comment period, 7 days as you propose, but the announcement and last day should be Tue-Thu, based on the fact I do not think the end time should be on a weekend or first day of the week anywhere on the planet.
Patrik
On 1 aug 2014, at 19:25, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I had sent this in the email about updated deadlines, but did not receive any feedback about it:
== Charter == Originally I think we were hoping to have received all charter comments roughly by Aug 1. Mohamed has made a proposal that we setup an explicit mechanism to solicit community feedback on the charter and announce a clear deadline for comments. I have not seen anyone oppose this proposal. So my suggestion is that I work with the secretariat to get an email alias (not a mailing list) up and running where community members can send comments if they are not able to convey them via an ICG member (which I still think is the preferred approach in general for charter comments). Comments sent to this alias would be directly reflected on a web page that we can setup. Assuming we can get this working by July 31, I suggest that we announce an Aug 8 deadline for charter comments. This is not a lengthy period of time but I think we had a general sense that it's most important to get the broad outlines of the charter right rather than spending weeks on the details, so hopefully this will be sufficient. =============
Alice has suggested that we could use a forum for this purpose, similar to the ones listed here: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/>. We could publish an announcement page that says that we are accepting public comments on the ICG charter, what the deadline is, a link to the charter, a link to the email alias to be used for comment submission, and a link to the forum page where comments will appear.
Should we do this?
How long of a comment period should we have? (I would say 7-10 days max, assuming we're interested in major substantive comments and not lots of detailed nits.)
Should we give any guidance about what kind of feedback we're looking for?
Thanks, Alissa
_______________________________________________ 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I agree that we should set up a mechanism for comments from the general public with the following properties: It clearly, bluntly, repeatedly and unavoidably states that the preferred method for participation is via the relevant communities. Maybe we should have a check box where people have to acknowledge that they understand this before they can post a comment. ;-) All comments should be stored in a public archive for all to see, including for us. Comments in this archive should be kept available for all to see for at least 5 years after they are made. Discussion should be strongly discouraged in this mechanism. There are other places for that already; the most appropriate are the relevant communities. We can then see all these comments and take them into account as appropriate. - ---- Comments for the charter should be treated as just a special case of the above. 14 calendar days is about the right time for this as this is about the time we would need to get substantive comments from our communities and I do not see that final agreement on the charter will substantially delay our other current work. Daniel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iQIVAwUBU9+nINDY5Emqa716AQLdBQ//SiFPTNCCn69DUAeN44Q0zrUdzwnw924H JIGV5mNTO2BaHrwdgdJOm1D7PZUIHkyOPZ56OorvXWyQDgZy0bM7jA/P0IuHAfXL CtSGI2+o5jqmN/er00JaS1M7XvjD+1ELC0OkG5zmUY8PD1W+yOGreJ0P2e6y/T7A 9SQr1aaGCASlPrCRFTZ3yggSBzkIh1/atlcZk84tnYf04hnTmjuX3w8eJIt9kixp qzRZj8qOTyRW8fbQNYD9BeiMiqpcha4uaU27/gK0Xa91LtQoVGFY5sRceRcBHp4C XiqlH1QQa2vN2AXvQJ3uAVJep/CCUCBRl+i/rfAcjTA7TWegNL6PEidTbatJzGO4 NC36/UDflT99KcGM7F8i/UBDcIiiv56vjbzRez7id7VRQMVxn58pLusKVDYHkkQc JDVgo3IB9HETfUqRr3gFQYA9Wx7gklF0ssbZuoz70534r2CQzEtqGOlqC/6OJzjx u4PsUhHPlnkzJk+P1k3o0eC6TqrRTzpGwblDiiq5/bGCDmNXBXZW9NXTWewwbB9q ZxuP6K0BNiM1pKLXkHlTw3IQNVtIFKodIjHnp/b0vcGtGYEz7gBu4lHhJHbzks9/ SUNpeIRcPeVUD92+G75MDDNDlli/+sFu89pOrv0l8x6y0KOikILLpknlY9+BlHZC WmXf5z9aPHg= =1pee -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Not too many people have commented on this, but all the comments are in a similar direction, so I’m going to go ahead and ask the ICANN folks to setup a forum and get a page ready that has all the relevant details, including a notice along the lines that Daniel proposes below about our much preferred communication mechanism being via the relevant communities and ICG participants. I’d like to also list an email address contact for the secretariat on the forum landing page, so that if people don’t know how to find a particular community or ICG participant, the secretariat can help point those people in the right direction or ask us for such direction. Let’s give a 10-day comment period once the page and forum get setup — compromise between 7 and 14. :) Plus if we do that we should have a decent chance of having some synthesis of the charter comments ready in time for our to-be-scheduled teleconference in late August. Comments welcome on this plan, of course. Alissa On 8/4/14, 8:30 AM, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I agree that we should set up a mechanism for comments from the general public with the following properties:
It clearly, bluntly, repeatedly and unavoidably states that the preferred method for participation is via the relevant communities. Maybe we should have a check box where people have to acknowledge that they understand this before they can post a comment. ;-)
All comments should be stored in a public archive for all to see, including for us. Comments in this archive should be kept available for all to see for at least 5 years after they are made.
Discussion should be strongly discouraged in this mechanism. There are other places for that already; the most appropriate are the relevant communities.
We can then see all these comments and take them into account as appropriate.
- ----
Comments for the charter should be treated as just a special case of the above. 14 calendar days is about the right time for this as this is about the time we would need to get substantive comments from our communities and I do not see that final agreement on the charter will substantially delay our other current work.
Daniel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iQIVAwUBU9+nINDY5Emqa716AQLdBQ//SiFPTNCCn69DUAeN44Q0zrUdzwnw924H JIGV5mNTO2BaHrwdgdJOm1D7PZUIHkyOPZ56OorvXWyQDgZy0bM7jA/P0IuHAfXL CtSGI2+o5jqmN/er00JaS1M7XvjD+1ELC0OkG5zmUY8PD1W+yOGreJ0P2e6y/T7A 9SQr1aaGCASlPrCRFTZ3yggSBzkIh1/atlcZk84tnYf04hnTmjuX3w8eJIt9kixp qzRZj8qOTyRW8fbQNYD9BeiMiqpcha4uaU27/gK0Xa91LtQoVGFY5sRceRcBHp4C XiqlH1QQa2vN2AXvQJ3uAVJep/CCUCBRl+i/rfAcjTA7TWegNL6PEidTbatJzGO4 NC36/UDflT99KcGM7F8i/UBDcIiiv56vjbzRez7id7VRQMVxn58pLusKVDYHkkQc JDVgo3IB9HETfUqRr3gFQYA9Wx7gklF0ssbZuoz70534r2CQzEtqGOlqC/6OJzjx u4PsUhHPlnkzJk+P1k3o0eC6TqrRTzpGwblDiiq5/bGCDmNXBXZW9NXTWewwbB9q ZxuP6K0BNiM1pKLXkHlTw3IQNVtIFKodIjHnp/b0vcGtGYEz7gBu4lHhJHbzks9/ SUNpeIRcPeVUD92+G75MDDNDlli/+sFu89pOrv0l8x6y0KOikILLpknlY9+BlHZC WmXf5z9aPHg= =1pee -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Here is some proposed text for the landing page that describes the charter commenting process: 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 charter is open for public comment until August XX, 2014 at 20:00 UTC. <bold>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.</bold> If you need assistance finding those processes or contacting the appropriate ICG participant, please contact <secretariat-email>. If you are absolutely not able to provide comments through a relevant community or ICG participant, a mechanism for submitting comments via an email alias is linked below. Please be aware that 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. As a result not all comments submitted concerning the charter will necessarily be incorporated. 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 8/4/14, 4:41 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Not too many people have commented on this, but all the comments are in a similar direction, so I’m going to go ahead and ask the ICANN folks to setup a forum and get a page ready that has all the relevant details, including a notice along the lines that Daniel proposes below about our much preferred communication mechanism being via the relevant communities and ICG participants. I’d like to also list an email address contact for the secretariat on the forum landing page, so that if people don’t know how to find a particular community or ICG participant, the secretariat can help point those people in the right direction or ask us for such direction.
Let’s give a 10-day comment period once the page and forum get setup — compromise between 7 and 14. :) Plus if we do that we should have a decent chance of having some synthesis of the charter comments ready in time for our to-be-scheduled teleconference in late August.
Comments welcome on this plan, of course. Alissa
On 8/4/14, 8:30 AM, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I agree that we should set up a mechanism for comments from the general public with the following properties:
It clearly, bluntly, repeatedly and unavoidably states that the preferred method for participation is via the relevant communities. Maybe we should have a check box where people have to acknowledge that they understand this before they can post a comment. ;-)
All comments should be stored in a public archive for all to see, including for us. Comments in this archive should be kept available for all to see for at least 5 years after they are made.
Discussion should be strongly discouraged in this mechanism. There are other places for that already; the most appropriate are the relevant communities.
We can then see all these comments and take them into account as appropriate.
- ----
Comments for the charter should be treated as just a special case of the above. 14 calendar days is about the right time for this as this is about the time we would need to get substantive comments from our communities and I do not see that final agreement on the charter will substantially delay our other current work.
Daniel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iQIVAwUBU9+nINDY5Emqa716AQLdBQ//SiFPTNCCn69DUAeN44Q0zrUdzwnw924H JIGV5mNTO2BaHrwdgdJOm1D7PZUIHkyOPZ56OorvXWyQDgZy0bM7jA/P0IuHAfXL CtSGI2+o5jqmN/er00JaS1M7XvjD+1ELC0OkG5zmUY8PD1W+yOGreJ0P2e6y/T7A 9SQr1aaGCASlPrCRFTZ3yggSBzkIh1/atlcZk84tnYf04hnTmjuX3w8eJIt9kixp qzRZj8qOTyRW8fbQNYD9BeiMiqpcha4uaU27/gK0Xa91LtQoVGFY5sRceRcBHp4C XiqlH1QQa2vN2AXvQJ3uAVJep/CCUCBRl+i/rfAcjTA7TWegNL6PEidTbatJzGO4 NC36/UDflT99KcGM7F8i/UBDcIiiv56vjbzRez7id7VRQMVxn58pLusKVDYHkkQc JDVgo3IB9HETfUqRr3gFQYA9Wx7gklF0ssbZuoz70534r2CQzEtqGOlqC/6OJzjx u4PsUhHPlnkzJk+P1k3o0eC6TqrRTzpGwblDiiq5/bGCDmNXBXZW9NXTWewwbB9q ZxuP6K0BNiM1pKLXkHlTw3IQNVtIFKodIjHnp/b0vcGtGYEz7gBu4lHhJHbzks9/ SUNpeIRcPeVUD92+G75MDDNDlli/+sFu89pOrv0l8x6y0KOikILLpknlY9+BlHZC WmXf5z9aPHg= =1pee -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 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
I agree with Daniel’s proposal here. Can we state that 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. This is reasonable I think, along with the emphasis on contributions via the relevant communities. Paul. On 5 Aug 2014, at 1:30 am, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I agree that we should set up a mechanism for comments from the general public with the following properties:
It clearly, bluntly, repeatedly and unavoidably states that the preferred method for participation is via the relevant communities. Maybe we should have a check box where people have to acknowledge that they understand this before they can post a comment. ;-)
All comments should be stored in a public archive for all to see, including for us. Comments in this archive should be kept available for all to see for at least 5 years after they are made.
Discussion should be strongly discouraged in this mechanism. There are other places for that already; the most appropriate are the relevant communities.
We can then see all these comments and take them into account as appropriate.
- ----
Comments for the charter should be treated as just a special case of the above. 14 calendar days is about the right time for this as this is about the time we would need to get substantive comments from our communities and I do not see that final agreement on the charter will substantially delay our other current work.
Daniel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iQIVAwUBU9+nINDY5Emqa716AQLdBQ//SiFPTNCCn69DUAeN44Q0zrUdzwnw924H JIGV5mNTO2BaHrwdgdJOm1D7PZUIHkyOPZ56OorvXWyQDgZy0bM7jA/P0IuHAfXL CtSGI2+o5jqmN/er00JaS1M7XvjD+1ELC0OkG5zmUY8PD1W+yOGreJ0P2e6y/T7A 9SQr1aaGCASlPrCRFTZ3yggSBzkIh1/atlcZk84tnYf04hnTmjuX3w8eJIt9kixp qzRZj8qOTyRW8fbQNYD9BeiMiqpcha4uaU27/gK0Xa91LtQoVGFY5sRceRcBHp4C XiqlH1QQa2vN2AXvQJ3uAVJep/CCUCBRl+i/rfAcjTA7TWegNL6PEidTbatJzGO4 NC36/UDflT99KcGM7F8i/UBDcIiiv56vjbzRez7id7VRQMVxn58pLusKVDYHkkQc JDVgo3IB9HETfUqRr3gFQYA9Wx7gklF0ssbZuoz70534r2CQzEtqGOlqC/6OJzjx u4PsUhHPlnkzJk+P1k3o0eC6TqrRTzpGwblDiiq5/bGCDmNXBXZW9NXTWewwbB9q ZxuP6K0BNiM1pKLXkHlTw3IQNVtIFKodIjHnp/b0vcGtGYEz7gBu4lHhJHbzks9/ SUNpeIRcPeVUD92+G75MDDNDlli/+sFu89pOrv0l8x6y0KOikILLpknlY9+BlHZC WmXf5z9aPHg= =1pee -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Ok, I made a couple of edits to the proposed landing page text to accommodate suggestions received. I slightly softened the language around community comments being our preferred mechanism and added a new final paragraph to address Paul’s and Mohamed’s points. We can keep tweaking this, but I’d like for ICANN to start getting it up on a web page in the meantime. New text: === 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 charter is open for public comment until August XX, 2014 at 20:00 UTC. <bold>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.</bold> If you need assistance finding those processes or contacting the appropriate ICG participant, please contact <secretariat-email>. If you are not able to provide comments through a relevant community or ICG participant, a mechanism for submitting comments via an email alias is linked below. Please be aware that 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. As a result not all comments submitted concerning the charter will necessarily be incorporated. 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 === Alissa On 8/5/14, 11:47 AM, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
I agree with Daniel’s proposal here.
Can we state that 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. This is reasonable I think, along with the emphasis on contributions via the relevant communities.
Paul.
On 5 Aug 2014, at 1:30 am, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I agree that we should set up a mechanism for comments from the general public with the following properties:
It clearly, bluntly, repeatedly and unavoidably states that the preferred method for participation is via the relevant communities. Maybe we should have a check box where people have to acknowledge that they understand this before they can post a comment. ;-)
All comments should be stored in a public archive for all to see, including for us. Comments in this archive should be kept available for all to see for at least 5 years after they are made.
Discussion should be strongly discouraged in this mechanism. There are other places for that already; the most appropriate are the relevant communities.
We can then see all these comments and take them into account as appropriate.
- ----
Comments for the charter should be treated as just a special case of the above. 14 calendar days is about the right time for this as this is about the time we would need to get substantive comments from our communities and I do not see that final agreement on the charter will substantially delay our other current work.
Daniel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iQIVAwUBU9+nINDY5Emqa716AQLdBQ//SiFPTNCCn69DUAeN44Q0zrUdzwnw924H JIGV5mNTO2BaHrwdgdJOm1D7PZUIHkyOPZ56OorvXWyQDgZy0bM7jA/P0IuHAfXL CtSGI2+o5jqmN/er00JaS1M7XvjD+1ELC0OkG5zmUY8PD1W+yOGreJ0P2e6y/T7A 9SQr1aaGCASlPrCRFTZ3yggSBzkIh1/atlcZk84tnYf04hnTmjuX3w8eJIt9kixp qzRZj8qOTyRW8fbQNYD9BeiMiqpcha4uaU27/gK0Xa91LtQoVGFY5sRceRcBHp4C XiqlH1QQa2vN2AXvQJ3uAVJep/CCUCBRl+i/rfAcjTA7TWegNL6PEidTbatJzGO4 NC36/UDflT99KcGM7F8i/UBDcIiiv56vjbzRez7id7VRQMVxn58pLusKVDYHkkQc JDVgo3IB9HETfUqRr3gFQYA9Wx7gklF0ssbZuoz70534r2CQzEtqGOlqC/6OJzjx u4PsUhHPlnkzJk+P1k3o0eC6TqrRTzpGwblDiiq5/bGCDmNXBXZW9NXTWewwbB9q ZxuP6K0BNiM1pKLXkHlTw3IQNVtIFKodIjHnp/b0vcGtGYEz7gBu4lHhJHbzks9/ SUNpeIRcPeVUD92+G75MDDNDlli/+sFu89pOrv0l8x6y0KOikILLpknlY9+BlHZC WmXf5z9aPHg= =1pee -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 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
This text is good. Again: I hope that the comment *mechanism* can be set up as a generic one and kept open until our work is done. Daniel On 5.08.14 23:30 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Ok, I made a couple of edits to the proposed landing page text to accommodate suggestions received. I slightly softened the language around community comments being our preferred mechanism and added a new final paragraph to address Paul’s and Mohamed’s points. We can keep tweaking this, but I’d like for ICANN to start getting it up on a web page in the meantime. New text:
===
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 charter is open for public comment until August XX, 2014 at 20:00 UTC. <bold>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.</bold> If you need assistance finding those processes or contacting the appropriate ICG participant, please contact <secretariat-email>. If you are not able to provide comments through a relevant community or ICG participant, a mechanism for submitting comments via an email alias is linked below.
Please be aware that 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. As a result not all comments submitted concerning the charter will necessarily be incorporated.
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
===
Alissa
On 8/5/14, 11:47 AM, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
I agree with Daniel’s proposal here.
Can we state that 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. This is reasonable I think, along with the emphasis on contributions via the relevant communities.
Paul.
On 5 Aug 2014, at 1:30 am, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I agree that we should set up a mechanism for comments from the general public with the following properties:
It clearly, bluntly, repeatedly and unavoidably states that the preferred method for participation is via the relevant communities. Maybe we should have a check box where people have to acknowledge that they understand this before they can post a comment. ;-)
All comments should be stored in a public archive for all to see, including for us. Comments in this archive should be kept available for all to see for at least 5 years after they are made.
Discussion should be strongly discouraged in this mechanism. There are other places for that already; the most appropriate are the relevant communities.
We can then see all these comments and take them into account as appropriate.
- ----
Comments for the charter should be treated as just a special case of the above. 14 calendar days is about the right time for this as this is about the time we would need to get substantive comments from our communities and I do not see that final agreement on the charter will substantially delay our other current work.
Daniel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iQIVAwUBU9+nINDY5Emqa716AQLdBQ//SiFPTNCCn69DUAeN44Q0zrUdzwnw924H JIGV5mNTO2BaHrwdgdJOm1D7PZUIHkyOPZ56OorvXWyQDgZy0bM7jA/P0IuHAfXL CtSGI2+o5jqmN/er00JaS1M7XvjD+1ELC0OkG5zmUY8PD1W+yOGreJ0P2e6y/T7A 9SQr1aaGCASlPrCRFTZ3yggSBzkIh1/atlcZk84tnYf04hnTmjuX3w8eJIt9kixp qzRZj8qOTyRW8fbQNYD9BeiMiqpcha4uaU27/gK0Xa91LtQoVGFY5sRceRcBHp4C XiqlH1QQa2vN2AXvQJ3uAVJep/CCUCBRl+i/rfAcjTA7TWegNL6PEidTbatJzGO4 NC36/UDflT99KcGM7F8i/UBDcIiiv56vjbzRez7id7VRQMVxn58pLusKVDYHkkQc JDVgo3IB9HETfUqRr3gFQYA9Wx7gklF0ssbZuoz70534r2CQzEtqGOlqC/6OJzjx u4PsUhHPlnkzJk+P1k3o0eC6TqrRTzpGwblDiiq5/bGCDmNXBXZW9NXTWewwbB9q ZxuP6K0BNiM1pKLXkHlTw3IQNVtIFKodIjHnp/b0vcGtGYEz7gBu4lHhJHbzks9/ SUNpeIRcPeVUD92+G75MDDNDlli/+sFu89pOrv0l8x6y0KOikILLpknlY9+BlHZC WmXf5z9aPHg= =1pee -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 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
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.
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.
Adiel and I may agree on the confusing nature of the message, but I think our responses point in opposite directions. 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. 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. 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. 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. --MM
-----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.
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.
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.
The revised text is fine and clear, I think its time we proceed and publish the text by tomorrow, let's give a deadline of 10 days. We should aim to approve/endorse the final charter in our teleconference call on 19 August, hopefully. Kind Regards, Mohamed
On 7 Aug 2014, at 20:57, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in]
Here is some revised landing page text that tries to capture the discussion in this thread:
Alissa: most of the discussion questioned the need for a public comment process. And yet you have proposed a public comment process.
Hi Milton, On 8/7/14, 11:48 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in]
Here is some revised landing page text that tries to capture the discussion in this thread:
Alissa: most of the discussion questioned the need for a public comment process. And yet you have proposed a public comment process.
I’ve been trying to sort through the discussion and it seemed like people wanted a short comment process to hear major objections to the charter, although I admit it’s been a little unclear how to assess people’s opinions on this. Mohamed suggested [1] on July 24 that we setup an email alias and establish a deadline for public comments, and a few people seemed to agree with that, including yourself. Based on that discussion I made a suggestion for getting going on that [2], which no one responded to, so I re-sent it [3], yielding the present thread. In this thread I saw support for a public comment email alias/forum from Patrik, Daniel, Paul, Mohamed, and I thought originally yourself (“I tend to agree with Patrik” [4]). I wasn’t quite sure what to conclude based on Adiel’s comments, but it seemed like you and he both agreed that we could check to see if anyone has major objections [5]. So, I proposed some landing page text that asked the public for comments in the form of major objections. Did I miss some discussions? Or misinterpret the bit about major objections? My personal view is that we don’t need a public comment period and the broad outlines of the charter are just fine, but I was just trying to reflect the collective will of the people who had commented on this. Thanks, Alissa [1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000414.html [2] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000533.html [3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000635.html [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000652.html [5] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000759.html
On Aug 8, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I wasn’t quite sure what to conclude based on Adiel’s comments, but it seemed like you and he both agreed that we could check to see if anyone has major objections [5]
My first comment was about the process only. As for the need to have a comment period, my position is that we could have completely avoid that step but due to the fact we have announced that we are expecting comments while publishing the first draft after London, we have no choice but do it with the period as short as possible. I hence support the suggestion to have an alias to collect the comments with a short deadline (10 days works for me). I’m fine with the new version of the landing page text. Hope this clarified my position. Thanks. - a.
I agree with Adiel here. We cannot go back on an announced comment process. Paul On 8 Aug 2014, at 6:48 am, Adiel Akplogan <adiel@afrinic.net> wrote:
On Aug 8, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I wasn’t quite sure what to conclude based on Adiel’s comments, but it seemed like you and he both agreed that we could check to see if anyone has major objections [5]
My first comment was about the process only. As for the need to have a comment period, my position is that we could have completely avoid that step but due to the fact we have announced that we are expecting comments while publishing the first draft after London, we have no choice but do it with the period as short as possible. I hence support the suggestion to have an alias to collect the comments with a short deadline (10 days works for me).
I’m fine with the new version of the landing page text.
Hope this clarified my position.
Thanks.
- a. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, I think you need to re-read and perhaps re-interpret some of the messages.
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in]
present thread. In this thread I saw support for a public comment email alias/forum from Patrik, Daniel, Paul, Mohamed, and I thought originally yourself (“I tend to agree with Patrik”
Either you completely misread Patrik's comments, or I did. But you certainly misread mine. Here they are: Patrik: "I have concerns about the overall process suggested. Originally we were hoping the various constituencies where to reach consensus on various things, and then pass it to us. That would of course not prohibit _individuals_ from sending comments to us of course. But, we would coordinate and draw conclusions on what proposals we find have the most support for. If we completely open the door, and even encourage, complete participation from anyone in the community, we will get a process like the 1Net mailing list, where I claim the majority of the feedback comes from various people that are to be honest quite non-constructive, repetitive and...well...not helpful. [snip] I just do not know how to manage the feedback. Specifically before we have a secretariat that can help us with compiling the feedback, sorting and understanding where the feedback is coming from." /end Patrik I interpret these comments as expressing deep skepticism about both the value of the public comment period and our ability to process It. So I said, "I agree with Patrik." And also said: "Our task is to get the thing going and not to spend 20% of our hopefully short lifespan discussing and debating our own charter. Unless we get serious and sustained objections to specific aspects of the draft from a broad spectrum of commentators from existing channels, I think we move ahead and reach consensus on the charter ourselves. I put the charter before my nominating group (the NCSG0 some time ago, and haven't heard any objections and have heard general satisfaction. GNSO people have a LOT of other things to comment upon, including the all-important CCWG that will develop a proposal for names, and imposing another comment period on the community when there is no indication that the draft charter is controversial or that the people on the ICG who drafted it are seriously misaligned with the wishes of their nominating communities strikes me as a waste of time." Then Adiel chimed in. I've seen some people agree with your original proposal, but none of them have answered Patrik's original concerns, or my concerns. The only real argument I've heard in favor of doing that is Adiel's that we promised we would do it in London - a promise I do not recall, but if someone can dig up conclusive evidence of it I would go along.
[4]). I wasn’t quite sure what to conclude based on Adiel’s comments, but it seemed like you and he both agreed that we could check to see if anyone has major objections [5]. So, I proposed some landing page text that asked the public for comments in the form of major objections. Did I miss some discussions? Or misinterpret the bit about major objections? My personal view is that we don’t need a public comment period and the broad outlines of the charter are just fine, but I was just trying to reflect the collective will of the people who had commented on this.
Thanks, Alissa
[1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000414.html [2] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000533.html [3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000635.html [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000652.html [5] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000759.html
Heh, I assessed Patrik’s message based on how it ended: "I just do not know how to manage the feedback. Specifically before we have a secretariat that can help us with compiling the feedback, sorting and understanding where the feedback is coming from. That said, for the charter, that decides how we should operate, we probably must do it this way. So to the questions, regarding a forum. Yes, I think we can use something like that. That uses email interface. We can not use any web forum (that have been experimented with by ICANN) that requires people to adhere to ICANN principles of any kind. Comment period, 7 days as you propose, but the announcement and last day should be Tue-Thu, based on the fact I do not think the end time should be on a weekend or first day of the week anywhere on the planet.” I thought this was fairly specific advice about what we should do for the charter, but perhaps not? Patrik? For my part I was still considering Jari as the point person for processing charter comments and producing a revised charter if necessary. I’ve seen him do it with 100+-email threads before. ;) But that only gets to one of your concerns, I know. Alissa On 8/7/14, 3:32 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Alissa, I think you need to re-read and perhaps re-interpret some of the messages.
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in]
present thread. In this thread I saw support for a public comment email alias/forum from Patrik, Daniel, Paul, Mohamed, and I thought originally yourself (“I tend to agree with Patrik”
Either you completely misread Patrik's comments, or I did. But you certainly misread mine.
Here they are:
Patrik: "I have concerns about the overall process suggested.
Originally we were hoping the various constituencies where to reach consensus on various things, and then pass it to us. That would of course not prohibit _individuals_ from sending comments to us of course. But, we would coordinate and draw conclusions on what proposals we find have the most support for.
If we completely open the door, and even encourage, complete participation from anyone in the community, we will get a process like the 1Net mailing list, where I claim the majority of the feedback comes from various people that are to be honest quite non-constructive, repetitive and...well...not helpful. [snip] I just do not know how to manage the feedback. Specifically before we have a secretariat that can help us with compiling the feedback, sorting and understanding where the feedback is coming from."
/end Patrik
I interpret these comments as expressing deep skepticism about both the value of the public comment period and our ability to process It.
So I said, "I agree with Patrik." And also said: "Our task is to get the thing going and not to spend 20% of our hopefully short lifespan discussing and debating our own charter. Unless we get serious and sustained objections to specific aspects of the draft from a broad spectrum of commentators from existing channels, I think we move ahead and reach consensus on the charter ourselves. I put the charter before my nominating group (the NCSG0 some time ago, and haven't heard any objections and have heard general satisfaction. GNSO people have a LOT of other things to comment upon, including the all-important CCWG that will develop a proposal for names, and imposing another comment period on the community when there is no indication that the draft charter is controversial or that the people on the ICG who drafted it are seriously misaligned with the wishes of their nominating communities strikes me as a waste of time."
Then Adiel chimed in.
I've seen some people agree with your original proposal, but none of them have answered Patrik's original concerns, or my concerns. The only real argument I've heard in favor of doing that is Adiel's that we promised we would do it in London - a promise I do not recall, but if someone can dig up conclusive evidence of it I would go along.
[4]). I wasn’t quite sure what to conclude based on Adiel’s comments, but it seemed like you and he both agreed that we could check to see if anyone has major objections [5]. So, I proposed some landing page text that asked the public for comments in the form of major objections. Did I miss some discussions? Or misinterpret the bit about major objections? My personal view is that we don’t need a public comment period and the broad outlines of the charter are just fine, but I was just trying to reflect the collective will of the people who had commented on this.
Thanks, Alissa
[1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000414.html [2] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000533.html [3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000635.html [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000652.html [5] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000759.html
On 8 aug 2014, at 00:45, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Heh, I assessed Patrik’s message based on how it ended:
"I just do not know how to manage the feedback. Specifically before we have a secretariat that can help us with compiling the feedback, sorting and understanding where the feedback is coming from.
That said, for the charter, that decides how we should operate, we probably must do it this way.
So to the questions, regarding a forum. Yes, I think we can use something like that. That uses email interface. We can not use any web forum (that have been experimented with by ICANN) that requires people to adhere to ICANN principles of any kind.
Comment period, 7 days as you propose, but the announcement and last day should be Tue-Thu, based on the fact I do not think the end time should be on a weekend or first day of the week anywhere on the planet.”
I thought this was fairly specific advice about what we should do for the charter, but perhaps not? Patrik?
Yes, it was about the charter. And my view is the same as Adiel.
For my part I was still considering Jari as the point person for processing charter comments and producing a revised charter if necessary. I’ve seen him do it with 100+-email threads before. ;) But that only gets to one of your concerns, I know.
I know individuals that have this skill. I am lucky as a chair of SSAC to have one staff support from ICANN that also knows how to do this. I am pretty lousy at it. At the end of the day, we need to (as I wrote in my message) not only be able to receive comments and draw conclusions regarding the charter but also other issues. We need to move now though. Every day of delay moves us closer to our next meeting and I want a charter before then. Patrik
Alissa
On 8/7/14, 3:32 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Alissa, I think you need to re-read and perhaps re-interpret some of the messages.
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in]
present thread. In this thread I saw support for a public comment email alias/forum from Patrik, Daniel, Paul, Mohamed, and I thought originally yourself (“I tend to agree with Patrik”
Either you completely misread Patrik's comments, or I did. But you certainly misread mine.
Here they are:
Patrik: "I have concerns about the overall process suggested.
Originally we were hoping the various constituencies where to reach consensus on various things, and then pass it to us. That would of course not prohibit _individuals_ from sending comments to us of course. But, we would coordinate and draw conclusions on what proposals we find have the most support for.
If we completely open the door, and even encourage, complete participation from anyone in the community, we will get a process like the 1Net mailing list, where I claim the majority of the feedback comes from various people that are to be honest quite non-constructive, repetitive and...well...not helpful. [snip] I just do not know how to manage the feedback. Specifically before we have a secretariat that can help us with compiling the feedback, sorting and understanding where the feedback is coming from."
/end Patrik
I interpret these comments as expressing deep skepticism about both the value of the public comment period and our ability to process It.
So I said, "I agree with Patrik." And also said: "Our task is to get the thing going and not to spend 20% of our hopefully short lifespan discussing and debating our own charter. Unless we get serious and sustained objections to specific aspects of the draft from a broad spectrum of commentators from existing channels, I think we move ahead and reach consensus on the charter ourselves. I put the charter before my nominating group (the NCSG0 some time ago, and haven't heard any objections and have heard general satisfaction. GNSO people have a LOT of other things to comment upon, including the all-important CCWG that will develop a proposal for names, and imposing another comment period on the community when there is no indication that the draft charter is controversial or that the people on the ICG who drafted it are seriously misaligned with the wishes of their nominating communities strikes me as a waste of time."
Then Adiel chimed in.
I've seen some people agree with your original proposal, but none of them have answered Patrik's original concerns, or my concerns. The only real argument I've heard in favor of doing that is Adiel's that we promised we would do it in London - a promise I do not recall, but if someone can dig up conclusive evidence of it I would go along.
[4]). I wasn’t quite sure what to conclude based on Adiel’s comments, but it seemed like you and he both agreed that we could check to see if anyone has major objections [5]. So, I proposed some landing page text that asked the public for comments in the form of major objections. Did I miss some discussions? Or misinterpret the bit about major objections? My personal view is that we don’t need a public comment period and the broad outlines of the charter are just fine, but I was just trying to reflect the collective will of the people who had commented on this.
Thanks, Alissa
[1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000414.html [2] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000533.html [3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000635.html [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000652.html [5] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000759.html
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I am in favor of moving ahead as Alissa suggests. The text is fine. I am also in favor of having a permanent comment mechanism, but that is secondary to moving ahead with receiving comments about the charter. We need to get the charter squared away. Daniel
Okay, let’s move ahead with this. I had a side conversation with Milton and I think we’re all roughly okay with moving forward. If we get this posted today, we can make the deadline next Friday (one week), and we can give Jari the weekend to come up with a possibly revised charter for discussion on our August 19 call. I know this is not ideal — short window, Friday deadline — but I think we better move forward. Alice, please get this text posted to its own web page and send us the link: === 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 15, 2014 at 23:59 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 15, 2014 at 23:59 UTC === On 8/8/14, 12:40 AM, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
I am in favor of moving ahead as Alissa suggests. The text is fine.
I am also in favor of having a permanent comment mechanism, but that is secondary to moving ahead with receiving comments about the charter.
We need to get the charter squared away.
Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, Yes ,we can move, but one week deadline for comments is really too short. Why we are in hurry. By the way,it is August and some people still on leave,knowing that I did not take any leave besing fully occupied with extensive exchange of e-mails with other ICG . Please kindly take intoaccount the French proverb" VITE FAIT, MAL FAIT" I suggest minimum 15 days for deadline Pls kindly be pateint, prudent,comprehensive. Even within 15 DAYS YOU MAY RECEIVE FEW COMMENTS ,all from ourown.s Regards KAVOUSS 2014-08-08 20:28 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Okay, let’s move ahead with this. I had a side conversation with Milton and I think we’re all roughly okay with moving forward.
If we get this posted today, we can make the deadline next Friday (one week), and we can give Jari the weekend to come up with a possibly revised charter for discussion on our August 19 call. I know this is not ideal — short window, Friday deadline — but I think we better move forward.
Alice, please get this text posted to its own web page and send us the link:
===
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 15, 2014 at 23:59 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 15, 2014 at 23:59 UTC
===
On 8/8/14, 12:40 AM, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
I am in favor of moving ahead as Alissa suggests. The text is fine.
I am also in favor of having a permanent comment mechanism, but that is secondary to moving ahead with receiving comments about the charter.
We need to get the charter squared away.
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
Hi Kavouss, The charter has been publicly available for three weeks, it is not a long document, and there has already been community interest in it. What we are providing here is a mechanism for people who have looked at the charter to send us their comments, some of which they have already formulated. So even with one more week, people will have had four weeks to take the charter in and formulate their thoughts about it. The charter is in some sense gating on other work we have before us, which is why I think everyone wants to get it done. Also, we’re asking for major objections. I think receiving few comments should be viewed as success, not failure. Alissa On 8/8/14, 11:35 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, Yes ,we can move, but one week deadline for comments is really too short. Why we are in hurry. By the way,it is August and some people still on leave,knowing that I did not take any leave besing fully occupied with extensive exchange of e-mails with other ICG . Please kindly take intoaccount the French proverb" VITE FAIT, MAL FAIT" I suggest minimum 15 days for deadline Pls kindly be pateint, prudent,comprehensive. Even within 15 DAYS YOU MAY RECEIVE FEW COMMENTS ,all from ourown.s Regards KAVOUSS
2014-08-08 20:28 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Okay, let’s move ahead with this. I had a side conversation with Milton and I think we’re all roughly okay with moving forward.
If we get this posted today, we can make the deadline next Friday (one week), and we can give Jari the weekend to come up with a possibly revised charter for discussion on our August 19 call. I know this is not ideal — short window, Friday deadline — but I think we better move forward.
Alice, please get this text posted to its own web page and send us the link:
===
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 15, 2014 at 23:59 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 15, 2014 at 23:59 UTC
===
On 8/8/14, 12:40 AM, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
I am in favor of moving ahead as Alissa suggests. The text is fine.
I am also in favor of having a permanent comment mechanism, but that is secondary to moving ahead with receiving comments about the charter.
We need to get the charter squared away.
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
Hi Alice, thank you for immediate reply, But Still we need to provide more time for comments unless you believe that only ICG Members are eligible to comment Pls priovide me a brief on comments you have received outside the ICG and outside constituency of ICANN. i.e from the community Regards Kavouss 2014-08-08 20:44 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Kavouss,
The charter has been publicly available for three weeks, it is not a long document, and there has already been community interest in it. What we are providing here is a mechanism for people who have looked at the charter to send us their comments, some of which they have already formulated. So even with one more week, people will have had four weeks to take the charter in and formulate their thoughts about it.
The charter is in some sense gating on other work we have before us, which is why I think everyone wants to get it done.
Also, we’re asking for major objections. I think receiving few comments should be viewed as success, not failure.
Alissa
On 8/8/14, 11:35 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, Yes ,we can move, but one week deadline for comments is really too short. Why we are in hurry. By the way,it is August and some people still on leave,knowing that I did not take any leave besing fully occupied with extensive exchange of e-mails with other ICG . Please kindly take intoaccount the French proverb" VITE FAIT, MAL FAIT" I suggest minimum 15 days for deadline Pls kindly be pateint, prudent,comprehensive. Even within 15 DAYS YOU MAY RECEIVE FEW COMMENTS ,all from ourown.s Regards KAVOUSS
2014-08-08 20:28 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Okay, let’s move ahead with this. I had a side conversation with Milton and I think we’re all roughly okay with moving forward.
If we get this posted today, we can make the deadline next Friday (one week), and we can give Jari the weekend to come up with a possibly revised charter for discussion on our August 19 call. I know this is not ideal — short window, Friday deadline — but I think we better move forward.
Alice, please get this text posted to its own web page and send us the link:
===
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 15, 2014 at 23:59 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 15, 2014 at 23:59 UTC
===
On 8/8/14, 12:40 AM, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
I am in favor of moving ahead as Alissa suggests. The text is fine.
I am also in favor of having a permanent comment mechanism, but that is secondary to moving ahead with receiving comments about the charter.
We need to get the charter squared away.
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
Hi Kavouss, On 8/8/14, 11:52 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Alice, thank you for immediate reply, But Still we need to provide more time for comments unless you believe that only ICG Members are eligible to comment
Anyone is eligible to comment, that’s why we’re setting up the public forum.
Pls priovide me a brief on comments you have received outside the ICG and outside constituency of ICANN. i.e from the community
I was thinking of the whole thread at [1]. I’m sure those who are actually in favor of a public comment process (Mohamed?) could provide additional details about the people they expect to see comments from. Cheers, Alissa [1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/001194.html
Regards Kavouss
2014-08-08 20:44 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Kavouss,
The charter has been publicly available for three weeks, it is not a long document, and there has already been community interest in it. What we are providing here is a mechanism for people who have looked at the charter to send us their comments, some of which they have already formulated. So even with one more week, people will have had four weeks to take the charter in and formulate their thoughts about it.
The charter is in some sense gating on other work we have before us, which is why I think everyone wants to get it done.
Also, we’re asking for major objections. I think receiving few comments should be viewed as success, not failure.
Alissa
On 8/8/14, 11:35 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, Yes ,we can move, but one week deadline for comments is really too short. Why we are in hurry. By the way,it is August and some people still on leave,knowing that I did not take any leave besing fully occupied with extensive exchange of e-mails with other ICG . Please kindly take intoaccount the French proverb" VITE FAIT, MAL FAIT" I suggest minimum 15 days for deadline Pls kindly be pateint, prudent,comprehensive. Even within 15 DAYS YOU MAY RECEIVE FEW COMMENTS ,all from ourown.s Regards KAVOUSS
2014-08-08 20:28 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Okay, let’s move ahead with this. I had a side conversation with Milton and I think we’re all roughly okay with moving forward.
If we get this posted today, we can make the deadline next Friday (one week), and we can give Jari the weekend to come up with a possibly revised charter for discussion on our August 19 call. I know this is not ideal — short window, Friday deadline — but I think we better move forward.
Alice, please get this text posted to its own web page and send us the link:
===
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 15, 2014 at 23:59 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 15, 2014 at 23:59 UTC
===
On 8/8/14, 12:40 AM, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
I am in favor of moving ahead as Alissa suggests. The text is fine.
I am also in favor of having a permanent comment mechanism, but that is secondary to moving ahead with receiving comments about the charter.
We need to get the charter squared away.
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
pls priovide me a brief on comments you have received outside the ICG and outside constituency of ICANN. i.e from the community I was thinking of the whole thread at [1]. I’m sure those who are actually in favor of a public comment process (Mohamed?) could provide additional details about the people they expect to see comments from. [1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/001194.html Yes, Kavouss, the charter was publicized among the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group as soon as the draft was posted back in mid-July. https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1407&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&F=&S=&P=13... We have general approval expressed in our conference calls and no objections on the list. while I am sympathetic to your concerns, we need to recall that there was a significant body of opinion within the ICG that we didn’t need a formal comment period at all. The charter is not what we are supposed to be working on, it is what enables and scopes our work. So the sooner we get it into place, the better – and then we can argue about the really important things! Milton L Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org
participants (9)
-
Adiel Akplogan -
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Milton L Mueller -
Mohamed El Bashir -
Patrik Fältström -
Paul Wilson -
WUKnoben