Re: [Internal-cg] [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
Hi Richard, On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
Dear Alissa,
Thank you very much for this. Since you are the chair of the ICG, I consider your comments to be very important.
The chair discussion is ongoing, actually. Regardless, please do not consider my comments to be any more important than those of any member of the ICG. The chair role (and the interim chair role) is functional and lends no additional credibility to the person in the role (beyond the ability to deal with lots of logistics!).
What I deduce from your message below is that:
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is not actually a draft, it is final, at least with respect to the process for obtaining proposals for the transition.
Although there has been no ICG-approved method for commenting on the draft charter, we know from messages on this list that there have beeen proposals to modify the draft charter.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG (or at least its chair) is making decisions regarding the process without taking into account community comments.
I would have expected the ICG to make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding.
I’m not sure why you deduce the above. My message explicitly described “[t]he thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward.” Importantly, it described “my understanding” of “what the ICG has proposed."
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership. Best, Alissa
4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is arbitrary.
Thanks again and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46 To: Tamer Rizk; rhill@hill-a.ch; Stephen Farrell Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; ianatransition@icann.org; ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of any interested party is evident to some but not to others. I’m wondering if a clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward is explained below.
There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing components of the transition proposal:
(1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding how to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced IETF participants) are here to help. The process uses well established mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to successfully craft thousands of documents over the years.
(2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation (which I’m sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people need help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing that help.
(3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I haven’t seen any indication that participation will be somehow restricted. Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel — but certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the ICG could run.
If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate, where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an arbitrary group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process created de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the various IANA functions?
Alissa
On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk@inficron.com> wrote:
Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to curtail our feedback is that a viable path for our comments to be reflected in the output of this process is not evident. If we desire an outcome that is representative of a diverse set of stakeholder interests, then the ICG should function to publicly aggregate input from those sources, merge them into discrete, topic based proposals for review by the wider community, and offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both external and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group
is
interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please refer to the previous suggestions herein.
Richard Hill wrote:
Please see below.
Thanks and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57 To: rhill@hill-a.ch Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; ianatransition@icann.org Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the summary could well include a satement to the effect that proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, in consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be a consensus proposal.
Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge their respective proposals before sending it to the ICG?
Of course they should. But what is the role of the ICG if all the coordination is done outside ICG?
What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top down process with consultations.
Hunh? What I propose is the usual process. People make inputs, an editor collates them and produces a consolidated draft. People comment on the draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc.
If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common proposal, why not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I don't call that "bottom up", I call that "pre-cooked deal".
Not good enough for me.
The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for comment, as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it.
Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course something that will never happen. You know that as well as I do.
There will surely be more objections at the end if people are discouraged from sending inputs and if their comments are not reflected in the output in some way (which may be an explanation of why the input was not included).
Patrik
_______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing list ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
_______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
Dear All, 1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is still a draft, it is not final until it is formally approved by ICG in its formal first f2f meeting on 06 September ,due to the fact that there has been no ICG-approved text yet tghus it is subject to further comments and modifications. 2) Thus it appears that the ICG should take decisions regarding the process taking into account community comments. ICG should therefore make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding on any thing . 3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from only the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own
individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership. 2014-08-02 19:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Richard,
On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
Dear Alissa,
Thank you very much for this. Since you are the chair of the ICG, I consider your comments to be very important.
The chair discussion is ongoing, actually. Regardless, please do not consider my comments to be any more important than those of any member of the ICG. The chair role (and the interim chair role) is functional and lends no additional credibility to the person in the role (beyond the ability to deal with lots of logistics!).
What I deduce from your message below is that:
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is not actually a draft, it is final, at least with respect to the process for obtaining proposals for the transition.
Although there has been no ICG-approved method for commenting on the draft charter, we know from messages on this list that there have beeen proposals to modify the draft charter.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG (or at least its chair) is making decisions regarding the process without taking into account community comments.
I would have expected the ICG to make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding.
I’m not sure why you deduce the above. My message explicitly described “[t]he thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward.” Importantly, it described “my understanding” of “what the ICG has proposed."
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
Best, Alissa
4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is arbitrary.
Thanks again and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46 To: Tamer Rizk; rhill@hill-a.ch; Stephen Farrell Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; ianatransition@icann.org; ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of any interested party is evident to some but not to others. I’m wondering if a clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward is explained below.
There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing components of the transition proposal:
(1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding how to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced IETF participants) are here to help. The process uses well established mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to successfully craft thousands of documents over the years.
(2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation (which I’m sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people need help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing that help.
(3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I haven’t seen any indication that participation will be somehow restricted. Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel — but certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the ICG could run.
If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate, where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an arbitrary group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process created de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the various IANA functions?
Alissa
On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk@inficron.com> wrote:
Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to curtail our feedback is that a viable path for our comments to be reflected in the output of this process is not evident. If we desire an outcome that is representative of a diverse set of stakeholder interests, then the ICG should function to publicly aggregate input from those sources, merge them into discrete, topic based proposals for review by the wider community, and offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both external and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group
is
interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please refer to the previous suggestions herein.
Richard Hill wrote:
Please see below.
Thanks and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57 To: rhill@hill-a.ch Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; ianatransition@icann.org Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
> I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the summary could well include a satement to the effect that proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, in consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be a consensus proposal.
Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge their respective proposals before sending it to the ICG?
Of course they should. But what is the role of the ICG if all the coordination is done outside ICG?
What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top down process with consultations.
Hunh? What I propose is the usual process. People make inputs, an editor collates them and produces a consolidated draft. People comment on the draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc.
If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common proposal, why not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I don't call that "bottom up", I call that "pre-cooked deal".
Not good enough for me.
> The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for comment, as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it.
Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course something that will never happen. You know that as well as I do.
There will surely be more objections at the end if people are discouraged from sending inputs and if their comments are not reflected in the output in some way (which may be an explanation of why the input was not included).
Patrik
_______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing list ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
_______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, Please FIND ATTACHED MY COMMENTS Regards K.ARASTEH 2014-08-02 23:15 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is still a draft, it is not final until it is formally approved by ICG in its formal first f2f meeting on 06 September ,due to the fact that there has been no ICG-approved text yet tghus it is subject to further comments and modifications.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG should take decisions regarding the process taking into account community comments. ICG should therefore make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding on any thing .
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from only the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own
individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
2014-08-02 19:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Richard,
On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
Dear Alissa,
Thank you very much for this. Since you are the chair of the ICG, I consider your comments to be very important.
The chair discussion is ongoing, actually. Regardless, please do not consider my comments to be any more important than those of any member of the ICG. The chair role (and the interim chair role) is functional and lends no additional credibility to the person in the role (beyond the ability to deal with lots of logistics!).
What I deduce from your message below is that:
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is not actually a draft, it is final, at least with respect to the process for obtaining proposals for the transition.
Although there has been no ICG-approved method for commenting on the draft charter, we know from messages on this list that there have beeen proposals to modify the draft charter.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG (or at least its chair) is making decisions regarding the process without taking into account community comments.
I would have expected the ICG to make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding.
I’m not sure why you deduce the above. My message explicitly described “[t]he thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward.” Importantly, it described “my understanding” of “what the ICG has proposed."
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
Best, Alissa
4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is arbitrary.
Thanks again and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46 To: Tamer Rizk; rhill@hill-a.ch; Stephen Farrell Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; ianatransition@icann.org; ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of any interested party is evident to some but not to others. I’m wondering if a clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the
ICG
has proposed for a process going forward is explained below.
There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing components of the transition proposal:
(1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding how to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced IETF participants) are here to help. The process uses well established mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to successfully craft thousands of documents over the years.
(2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation (which I’m sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people need help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing that help.
(3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I haven’t seen any indication that participation will be somehow restricted. Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel — but certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the ICG could run.
If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate, where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an arbitrary group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process created de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the various IANA functions?
Alissa
On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk@inficron.com> wrote:
Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to curtail our feedback is that a viable path for our comments to be reflected in the output of this process is not evident. If we desire an outcome that is representative of a diverse set of stakeholder interests, then the ICG should function to publicly aggregate input from those sources, merge them into discrete, topic based proposals for review by the wider community, and offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both external and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group
is
interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please refer to the previous suggestions herein.
Richard Hill wrote:
Please see below.
Thanks and best, Richard
> -----Original Message----- > From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] > Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57 > To: rhill@hill-a.ch > Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; ianatransition@icann.org > Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG) > > > > On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote: > >> I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the > summary could well include a satement to the effect that > proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, in > consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be a > consensus proposal. > > Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge their > respective proposals before sending it to the ICG?
Of course they should. But what is the role of the ICG if all the coordination is done outside ICG?
> > What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top > down process with consultations.
Hunh? What I propose is the usual process. People make inputs, an editor collates them and produces a consolidated draft. People comment on the draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc.
If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common proposal, why not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I don't call that "bottom up", I call that "pre-cooked deal".
> > Not good enough for me. > >> The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for comment, > as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it. > > Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course something > that will never happen. You know that as well as I do.
There will surely be more objections at the end if people are discouraged from sending inputs and if their comments are not reflected in the output in some way (which may be an explanation of why the input was not included).
> > Patrik > >
_______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing list ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
_______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Would one way to address the breadth issue while considering the needs of channeling and efficiency be to: 1. At the outset, request the three proposals from the three communities. 2. Assure that those communities make public ways for non-members of the community to comment on their work. 3. From the outset allow comments on all ICG processes for transparency etc. 4. As we receive each proposal, publish it as a draft for consideration and accept comments on those proposals as well as comments on how the proposals may work together. 5. As we coordinate across the proposals to develop the NTIA submission allow comments across that process. This could be considered inclusive without being disruptive or overwhelming. As to accountability, I would perhaps ask people to only comment on linkages that should be considered between IANA transition and the larger ICANN accountability question. Issues specifically dealing only with ICANN accountability should be more appropriately routed to that committee. Joe On 8/2/2014 5:49 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Please FIND ATTACHED MY COMMENTS
Regards
K.ARASTEH
2014-08-02 23:15 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear All,
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is still a draft, it is not final until it is formally approved by ICG in its formal first f2f meeting on 06 September ,due to the fact that there has been no ICG-approved text yet tghus it is subject to further comments and modifications.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG should take decisions regarding the process taking into account community comments. ICG should therefore make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding on any thing .
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from only the 3 customer communities of IANA -- representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own > individual community requirements/arrangements. > > I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those > should be the only proposals. > > In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal > that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), > and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I > recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of > the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding > IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability. > > Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit > proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce > the breadth and scope of the proposals. > > Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because > not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of > the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the > processes used in those communities. > > Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for > inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion. > > Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, > NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet > community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder > community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of "membership" prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
2014-08-02 19:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>:
Hi Richard,
On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch <mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch>> wrote:
>Dear Alissa, > >Thank you very much for this. Since you are the chair of the ICG, I >consider your comments to be very important.
The chair discussion is ongoing, actually. Regardless, please do not consider my comments to be any more important than those of any member of the ICG. The chair role (and the interim chair role) is functional and lends no additional credibility to the person in the role (beyond the ability to deal with lots of logistics!).
> >What I deduce from your message below is that: > >1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is not actually a draft, it >is final, at least with respect to the process for obtaining proposals >for the transition. > >Although there has been no ICG-approved method for commenting on the >draft charter, we know from messages on this list that there have beeen >proposals to modify the draft charter. > >2) Thus it appears that the ICG (or at least its chair) is making >decisions regarding the process without taking into account community >comments. > >I would have expected the ICG to make proposls regarding the process and >to submit them for public comment before deciding.
I'm not sure why you deduce the above. My message explicitly described "[t]he thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward." Importantly, it described "my understanding" of "what the ICG has proposed."
> >3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from >the 3 customer communities of IANA -- representing Names, Numbers and >Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own >individual community requirements/arrangements. > >I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those >should be the only proposals. > >In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal >that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), >and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I >recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of >the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding >IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability. > >Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit >proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce >the breadth and scope of the proposals. > >Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because >not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of >the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the >processes used in those communities. > >Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for >inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion. > >Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, >NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet >community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder >community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of "membership" prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
Best, Alissa
> >4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is >arbitrary. > >Thanks again and best, >Richard > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>] >> Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46 >> To: Tamer Rizk; rhill@hill-a.ch <mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch>; Stephen Farrell >> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>; ianatransition@icann.org <mailto:ianatransition@icann.org>; >> ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org <mailto:ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org> >> Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition >> of the ICG) >> >> >> Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of >>any >> interested party is evident to some but not to others. I'm wondering if >>a >> clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the ICG >> has proposed for a process going forward is explained below. >> >> There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing >> components of the transition proposal: >> >> (1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As >> with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No >> one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding >>how >> to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced >>IETF >> participants) are here to help. The process uses well established >> mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to >> successfully craft thousands of documents over the years. >> >> (2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation >> (which I'm sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will >> also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people >>need >> help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing >> that help. >> >> (3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the >> only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I >> haven't seen any indication that participation will be somehow >>restricted. >> Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel --- >>but >> certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the >>ICG >> could run. >> >> If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate, >> where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop >> focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that >> coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the >> appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and >> consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an >>arbitrary >> group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process >>created >> de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support >> and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the >> various IANA functions? >> >> Alissa >> >> On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk@inficron.com <mailto:trizk@inficron.com>> wrote: >> >> > >> >Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to curtail our >> >feedback is that a viable path for our comments to be reflected in the >> >output of this process is not evident. If we desire an outcome that is >> >representative of a diverse set of stakeholder interests, then the ICG >> >should function to publicly aggregate input from those sources, merge >> >them into discrete, topic based proposals for review by the wider >> >community, and offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both >> >external and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group >>is >> >interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would >> >appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please refer to >> >the previous suggestions herein. >> > >> >Richard Hill wrote: >> >> Please see below. >> >> >> >> Thanks and best, >> >> Richard >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@frobbit.se <mailto:paf@frobbit.se>] >> >>> Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57 >> >>> To: rhill@hill-a.ch <mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch> >> >>> Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; ianatransition@icann.org <mailto:ianatransition@icann.org> >> >>> Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition >> of the ICG) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch <mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the >> >>> summary could well include a satement to the effect that >> >>> proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, in >> >>> consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be a >> >>> consensus proposal. >> >>> >> >>> Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge their >> >>> respective proposals before sending it to the ICG? >> >> >> >> Of course they should. But what is the role of the ICG if all the >> >> coordination is done outside ICG? >> >> >> >>> >> >>> What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top >> >>> down process with consultations. >> >> >> >> Hunh? What I propose is the usual process. People make inputs, an >> >>editor >> >> collates them and produces a consolidated draft. People comment on >>the >> >> draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc. >> >> >> >> If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common proposal, >> >>why >> >> not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I don't call that >>"bottom >> >>up", >> >> I call that "pre-cooked deal". >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Not good enough for me. >> >>> >> >>>> The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for comment, >> >>> as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it. >> >>> >> >>> Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course something >> >>> that will never happen. You know that as well as I do. >> >> >> >> There will surely be more objections at the end if people are >> >>discouraged >> >> from sending inputs and if their comments are not reflected in the >> >>output in >> >> some way (which may be an explanation of why the input was not >> >>included). >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Patrik >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> ianatransition mailing list >> >> ianatransition@icann.org <mailto:ianatransition@icann.org> >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition >> >> >> >_______________________________________________ >> >IANAxfer mailing list >> >IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org <mailto:IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org> >> >https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto: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 think this looks good. I would even like to see as an over arching request from us to have as many as possible participate in the development of the proposals we get to us. There might even be things all three groups get some consensus on together? If they detect that, why not have them tell us? We will reach the day when we as part of our coordination activities must decide some proposals that reach us are on rough side of rough consensus. Either proposals not getting traction within each one of the communities (i.e. filtered out before proposals reaches us, but the proposals still get posted to us), or because we see the proposals be so different than what is proposed from the general consensus that we do not see it being possible to be integrated. The more those "odd one out" proposals have been discussed _before_ we get them, the better. Otherwise that will be a delay for us. When we have to measure what the feeling is about them. Regards, Patrik On 3 aug 2014, at 15:22, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Would one way to address the breadth issue while considering the needs of channeling and efficiency be to:
1. At the outset, request the three proposals from the three communities. 2. Assure that those communities make public ways for non-members of the community to comment on their work. 3. From the outset allow comments on all ICG processes for transparency etc. 4. As we receive each proposal, publish it as a draft for consideration and accept comments on those proposals as well as comments on how the proposals may work together. 5. As we coordinate across the proposals to develop the NTIA submission allow comments across that process.
This could be considered inclusive without being disruptive or overwhelming.
As to accountability, I would perhaps ask people to only comment on linkages that should be considered between IANA transition and the larger ICANN accountability question. Issues specifically dealing only with ICANN accountability should be more appropriately routed to that committee.
Joe
On 8/2/2014 5:49 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Please FIND ATTACHED MY COMMENTS
Regards
K.ARASTEH
2014-08-02 23:15 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All,
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is still a draft, it is not final until it is formally approved by ICG in its formal first f2f meeting on 06 September ,due to the fact that there has been no ICG-approved text yet tghus it is subject to further comments and modifications.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG should take decisions regarding the process taking into account community comments. ICG should therefore make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding on any thing .
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from only the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own
individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
2014-08-02 19:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Richard,
On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
Dear Alissa,
Thank you very much for this. Since you are the chair of the ICG, I consider your comments to be very important.
The chair discussion is ongoing, actually. Regardless, please do not consider my comments to be any more important than those of any member of the ICG. The chair role (and the interim chair role) is functional and lends no additional credibility to the person in the role (beyond the ability to deal with lots of logistics!).
What I deduce from your message below is that:
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is not actually a draft, it is final, at least with respect to the process for obtaining proposals for the transition.
Although there has been no ICG-approved method for commenting on the draft charter, we know from messages on this list that there have beeen proposals to modify the draft charter.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG (or at least its chair) is making decisions regarding the process without taking into account community comments.
I would have expected the ICG to make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding.
I’m not sure why you deduce the above. My message explicitly described “[t]he thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward.” Importantly, it described “my understanding” of “what the ICG has proposed."
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
Best, Alissa
4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is arbitrary.
Thanks again and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46 To: Tamer Rizk; rhill@hill-a.ch; Stephen Farrell Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; ianatransition@icann.org; ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of any interested party is evident to some but not to others. I’m wondering if a clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward is explained below.
There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing components of the transition proposal:
(1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding how to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced IETF participants) are here to help. The process uses well established mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to successfully craft thousands of documents over the years.
(2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation (which I’m sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people need help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing that help.
(3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I haven’t seen any indication that participation will be somehow restricted. Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel — but certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the ICG could run.
If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate, where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an arbitrary group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process created de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the various IANA functions?
Alissa
On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk@inficron.com> wrote:
Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to curtail our feedback is that a viable path for our comments to be reflected in the output of this process is not evident. If we desire an outcome that is representative of a diverse set of stakeholder interests, then the ICG should function to publicly aggregate input from those sources, merge them into discrete, topic based proposals for review by the wider community, and offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both external and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group
is
interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please refer to the previous suggestions herein.
Richard Hill wrote:
Please see below.
Thanks and best, Richard
> -----Original Message----- > From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] > Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57 > To: rhill@hill-a.ch > Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; ianatransition@icann.org > Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG) > > > > On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote: > >> I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the > summary could well include a satement to the effect that > proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, in > consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be a > consensus proposal. > > Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge their > respective proposals before sending it to the ICG?
Of course they should. But what is the role of the ICG if all the coordination is done outside ICG?
> > What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top > down process with consultations.
Hunh? What I propose is the usual process. People make inputs, an editor collates them and produces a consolidated draft. People comment on the draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc.
If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common proposal, why not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I don't call that "bottom up", I call that "pre-cooked deal".
> > Not good enough for me. > >> The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for comment, > as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it. > > Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course something > that will never happen. You know that as well as I do.
There will surely be more objections at the end if people are discouraged from sending inputs and if their comments are not reflected in the output in some way (which may be an explanation of why the input was not included).
> > Patrik > >
_______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing list ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
_______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thank you Joe and Patrick, and all please excuse my straight and non-diplomatic talk here, but I think we are not being consistent with our own discussion and agreement. I recall that we had this discussion in London and it was clear that we cannot restrict the contribution solely to the 3 groups (even if we expect each of them to run an open process where everyone can participate) but we have clearly highlight the fact (at least I made that comment) that we need to allow broader input and proposal even though __particular__ attention will be given to the one coming from the 3 main customers. We need to reaffirm this to the community (if it was not clear enough). We need to make the process as broader as possible as not everyone clearly identify themselves to these 3 main groups so it should be clear how their views reach to us. Maybe we have not been clear enough about that in our communication outside. Again my plea for us to collectively operate as ICG and not representative of our community view. We want it or not our work hold a political dimension for many around the world (genuinely or not) and we have, as ICG, to collectively accept that and try to carefully reflect that in our proceedings (of course without diluting the real substance of what is on stake). Thanks. - a. On Aug 3, 2014, at 18:22 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
I think this looks good.
I would even like to see as an over arching request from us to have as many as possible participate in the development of the proposals we get to us. There might even be things all three groups get some consensus on together? If they detect that, why not have them tell us?
We will reach the day when we as part of our coordination activities must decide some proposals that reach us are on rough side of rough consensus. Either proposals not getting traction within each one of the communities (i.e. filtered out before proposals reaches us, but the proposals still get posted to us), or because we see the proposals be so different than what is proposed from the general consensus that we do not see it being possible to be integrated.
The more those "odd one out" proposals have been discussed _before_ we get them, the better. Otherwise that will be a delay for us. When we have to measure what the feeling is about them.
Regards, Patrik
On 3 aug 2014, at 15:22, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Would one way to address the breadth issue while considering the needs of channeling and efficiency be to:
1. At the outset, request the three proposals from the three communities. 2. Assure that those communities make public ways for non-members of the community to comment on their work. 3. From the outset allow comments on all ICG processes for transparency etc. 4. As we receive each proposal, publish it as a draft for consideration and accept comments on those proposals as well as comments on how the proposals may work together. 5. As we coordinate across the proposals to develop the NTIA submission allow comments across that process.
This could be considered inclusive without being disruptive or overwhelming.
As to accountability, I would perhaps ask people to only comment on linkages that should be considered between IANA transition and the larger ICANN accountability question. Issues specifically dealing only with ICANN accountability should be more appropriately routed to that committee.
Joe
On 8/2/2014 5:49 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Please FIND ATTACHED MY COMMENTS
Regards
K.ARASTEH
2014-08-02 23:15 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All,
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is still a draft, it is not final until it is formally approved by ICG in its formal first f2f meeting on 06 September ,due to the fact that there has been no ICG-approved text yet tghus it is subject to further comments and modifications.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG should take decisions regarding the process taking into account community comments. ICG should therefore make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding on any thing .
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from only the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own
individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
2014-08-02 19:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Richard,
On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
Dear Alissa,
Thank you very much for this. Since you are the chair of the ICG, I consider your comments to be very important.
The chair discussion is ongoing, actually. Regardless, please do not consider my comments to be any more important than those of any member of the ICG. The chair role (and the interim chair role) is functional and lends no additional credibility to the person in the role (beyond the ability to deal with lots of logistics!).
What I deduce from your message below is that:
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is not actually a draft, it is final, at least with respect to the process for obtaining proposals for the transition.
Although there has been no ICG-approved method for commenting on the draft charter, we know from messages on this list that there have beeen proposals to modify the draft charter.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG (or at least its chair) is making decisions regarding the process without taking into account community comments.
I would have expected the ICG to make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding.
I’m not sure why you deduce the above. My message explicitly described “[t]he thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward.” Importantly, it described “my understanding” of “what the ICG has proposed."
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
Best, Alissa
4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is arbitrary.
Thanks again and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46 To: Tamer Rizk; rhill@hill-a.ch; Stephen Farrell Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; ianatransition@icann.org; ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of any interested party is evident to some but not to others. I’m wondering if a clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward is explained below.
There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing components of the transition proposal:
(1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding how to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced IETF participants) are here to help. The process uses well established mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to successfully craft thousands of documents over the years.
(2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation (which I’m sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people need help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing that help.
(3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I haven’t seen any indication that participation will be somehow restricted. Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel — but certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the ICG could run.
If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate, where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an arbitrary group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process created de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the various IANA functions?
Alissa
On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk@inficron.com> wrote:
Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to curtail our feedback is that a viable path for our comments to be reflected in the output of this process is not evident. If we desire an outcome that is representative of a diverse set of stakeholder interests, then the ICG should function to publicly aggregate input from those sources, merge them into discrete, topic based proposals for review by the wider community, and offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both external and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group
is
interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please refer to the previous suggestions herein.
Richard Hill wrote: > Please see below. > > Thanks and best, > Richard > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] >> Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57 >> To: rhill@hill-a.ch >> Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; ianatransition@icann.org >> Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG) >> >> >> >> On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote: >> >>> I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the >> summary could well include a satement to the effect that >> proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, in >> consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be a >> consensus proposal. >> >> Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge their >> respective proposals before sending it to the ICG? > > Of course they should. But what is the role of the ICG if all the > coordination is done outside ICG? > >> >> What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top >> down process with consultations. > > Hunh? What I propose is the usual process. People make inputs, an >editor > collates them and produces a consolidated draft. People comment on the > draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc. > > If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common proposal, >why > not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I don't call that "bottom >up", > I call that "pre-cooked deal". > >> >> Not good enough for me. >> >>> The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for comment, >> as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it. >> >> Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course something >> that will never happen. You know that as well as I do. > > There will surely be more objections at the end if people are >discouraged > from sending inputs and if their comments are not reflected in the >output in > some way (which may be an explanation of why the input was not >included). > >> >> Patrik >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > ianatransition mailing list > ianatransition@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition > _______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Adiel, I do not see you and I disagree. I agree with what you say here. We of course must take any input into account. Otherwise the process as a whole do not fulfil the requirements we have. My only point was that we (for a much broader definition of "we" than ICG) must allow ideas to be outside of what is "consensus". Patrik On 4 aug 2014, at 08:19, Adiel Akplogan <adiel@afrinic.net> wrote:
Thank you Joe and Patrick, and all please excuse my straight and non-diplomatic talk here, but I think we are not being consistent with our own discussion and agreement. I recall that we had this discussion in London and it was clear that we cannot restrict the contribution solely to the 3 groups (even if we expect each of them to run an open process where everyone can participate) but we have clearly highlight the fact (at least I made that comment) that we need to allow broader input and proposal even though __particular__ attention will be given to the one coming from the 3 main customers. We need to reaffirm this to the community (if it was not clear enough). We need to make the process as broader as possible as not everyone clearly identify themselves to these 3 main groups so it should be clear how their views reach to us. Maybe we have not been clear enough about that in our communication outside.
Again my plea for us to collectively operate as ICG and not representative of our community view. We want it or not our work hold a political dimension for many around the world (genuinely or not) and we have, as ICG, to collectively accept that and try to carefully reflect that in our proceedings (of course without diluting the real substance of what is on stake).
Thanks.
- a.
On Aug 3, 2014, at 18:22 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
I think this looks good.
I would even like to see as an over arching request from us to have as many as possible participate in the development of the proposals we get to us. There might even be things all three groups get some consensus on together? If they detect that, why not have them tell us?
We will reach the day when we as part of our coordination activities must decide some proposals that reach us are on rough side of rough consensus. Either proposals not getting traction within each one of the communities (i.e. filtered out before proposals reaches us, but the proposals still get posted to us), or because we see the proposals be so different than what is proposed from the general consensus that we do not see it being possible to be integrated.
The more those "odd one out" proposals have been discussed _before_ we get them, the better. Otherwise that will be a delay for us. When we have to measure what the feeling is about them.
Regards, Patrik
On 3 aug 2014, at 15:22, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Would one way to address the breadth issue while considering the needs of channeling and efficiency be to:
1. At the outset, request the three proposals from the three communities. 2. Assure that those communities make public ways for non-members of the community to comment on their work. 3. From the outset allow comments on all ICG processes for transparency etc. 4. As we receive each proposal, publish it as a draft for consideration and accept comments on those proposals as well as comments on how the proposals may work together. 5. As we coordinate across the proposals to develop the NTIA submission allow comments across that process.
This could be considered inclusive without being disruptive or overwhelming.
As to accountability, I would perhaps ask people to only comment on linkages that should be considered between IANA transition and the larger ICANN accountability question. Issues specifically dealing only with ICANN accountability should be more appropriately routed to that committee.
Joe
On 8/2/2014 5:49 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Please FIND ATTACHED MY COMMENTS
Regards
K.ARASTEH
2014-08-02 23:15 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All,
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is still a draft, it is not final until it is formally approved by ICG in its formal first f2f meeting on 06 September ,due to the fact that there has been no ICG-approved text yet tghus it is subject to further comments and modifications.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG should take decisions regarding the process taking into account community comments. ICG should therefore make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding on any thing .
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from only the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own
individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
2014-08-02 19:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Richard,
On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
Dear Alissa,
Thank you very much for this. Since you are the chair of the ICG, I consider your comments to be very important.
The chair discussion is ongoing, actually. Regardless, please do not consider my comments to be any more important than those of any member of the ICG. The chair role (and the interim chair role) is functional and lends no additional credibility to the person in the role (beyond the ability to deal with lots of logistics!).
What I deduce from your message below is that:
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is not actually a draft, it is final, at least with respect to the process for obtaining proposals for the transition.
Although there has been no ICG-approved method for commenting on the draft charter, we know from messages on this list that there have beeen proposals to modify the draft charter.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG (or at least its chair) is making decisions regarding the process without taking into account community comments.
I would have expected the ICG to make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding.
I’m not sure why you deduce the above. My message explicitly described “[t]he thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward.” Importantly, it described “my understanding” of “what the ICG has proposed."
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
Best, Alissa
4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is arbitrary.
Thanks again and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46 To: Tamer Rizk; rhill@hill-a.ch; Stephen Farrell Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; ianatransition@icann.org; ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of any interested party is evident to some but not to others. I’m wondering if a clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward is explained below.
There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing components of the transition proposal:
(1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding how to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced IETF participants) are here to help. The process uses well established mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to successfully craft thousands of documents over the years.
(2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation (which I’m sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people need help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing that help.
(3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I haven’t seen any indication that participation will be somehow restricted. Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel — but certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the ICG could run.
If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate, where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an arbitrary group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process created de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the various IANA functions?
Alissa
On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk@inficron.com> wrote:
> > Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to curtail our > feedback is that a viable path for our comments to be reflected in the > output of this process is not evident. If we desire an outcome that is > representative of a diverse set of stakeholder interests, then the ICG > should function to publicly aggregate input from those sources, merge > them into discrete, topic based proposals for review by the wider > community, and offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both > external and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group is > interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would > appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please refer to > the previous suggestions herein. > > Richard Hill wrote: >> Please see below. >> >> Thanks and best, >> Richard >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] >>> Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57 >>> To: rhill@hill-a.ch >>> Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; ianatransition@icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG) >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote: >>> >>>> I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the >>> summary could well include a satement to the effect that >>> proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, in >>> consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be a >>> consensus proposal. >>> >>> Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge their >>> respective proposals before sending it to the ICG? >> >> Of course they should. But what is the role of the ICG if all the >> coordination is done outside ICG? >> >>> >>> What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top >>> down process with consultations. >> >> Hunh? What I propose is the usual process. People make inputs, an >> editor >> collates them and produces a consolidated draft. People comment on the >> draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc. >> >> If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common proposal, >> why >> not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I don't call that "bottom >> up", >> I call that "pre-cooked deal". >> >>> >>> Not good enough for me. >>> >>>> The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for comment, >>> as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it. >>> >>> Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course something >>> that will never happen. You know that as well as I do. >> >> There will surely be more objections at the end if people are >> discouraged >> from sending inputs and if their comments are not reflected in the >> output in >> some way (which may be an explanation of why the input was not >> included). >> >>> >>> Patrik >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianatransition mailing list >> ianatransition@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition >> > _______________________________________________ > IANAxfer mailing list > IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Adiel: I don't know that anyone is suggesting that we preclude that more than three proposals could come in, but it seems reasonable to wait until after the three requested proposals are presented before calling for more proposals. If they are not adequate or appropriate in the views of the broader community they can seek to provide additional comments or submit alternative proposals. That being said, I think that we need to recall that we are the coordinator of the consensus related to the proposals submitted to us, we are not the architect. The more that we have one off proposals that don't come through a process that is either established or designed to get some community consensus, the more we will be creating cycles of analysis that will require us to take on a greater decision-making role. In our discussions in the greater business community (those beyond what we have called in shorthand IANA customers) we believe that it is best for those with the operational responsibilities and technical skills to propose the appropriate solutions to the NTIA transition. We see our role more in the evaluation of those proposals for continued or enhanced operational efficiency, integrity, security, transparency and accountability. That is why we place so much importance on the information which must be provided in the proposals (including on how they have been tested) and the request that the information be provided in plain English. We are fine with the concept that the proposals should have comparability, but we are also strong proponents of additional explanation in narrative text fields that are not well suited to comparison. For example there already exist across IANA functions certain accountability functions that are internal to the organizations. Those need to be described in detail with appropriate links and cross references. Why were they put into place, how well have they worked... How are they neutral, inclusive and transparent? How are third parties included, how are their recommendations reviewed and implemented and with what periodicity. This information is of great importance to inform the review by broader communities. Those who are the beneficiaries of the IANA functions and who feel the second order impacts on their commercial or personal use of the Internet are not likely to be prime candidates to participate in the narrower community processes of proposal development, but need to be empowered to be effective interlocutors in the broader consultation. That is why I have tried to focus on making sure that the proposals, how they work together, their accountability processes and the linkage to the broader ICANN accountability work are the focus of disclosures and subject to broad scrutiny. In terms of operating as the ICG, I think one thing we could do, assuming there is funding for it and that it does not already exist from neutral parties, is to commission academic reviews of existing audit/governance/accountability systems, not limited to IANA functions that further enable the broader communities to evaluate the reasonableness and workability of accountability systems in any proposals for transition. Best- Joe On 8/4/2014 2:19 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
Thank you Joe and Patrick, and all please excuse my straight and non-diplomatic talk here, but I think we are not being consistent with our own discussion and agreement. I recall that we had this discussion in London and it was clear that we cannot restrict the contribution solely to the 3 groups (even if we expect each of them to run an open process where everyone can participate) but we have clearly highlight the fact (at least I made that comment) that we need to allow broader input and proposal even though __particular__ attention will be given to the one coming from the 3 main customers. We need to reaffirm this to the community (if it was not clear enough). We need to make the process as broader as possible as not everyone clearly identify themselves to these 3 main groups so it should be clear how their views reach to us. Maybe we have not been clear enough about that in our communication outside.
Again my plea for us to collectively operate as ICG and not representative of our community view. We want it or not our work hold a political dimension for many around the world (genuinely or not) and we have, as ICG, to collectively accept that and try to carefully reflect that in our proceedings (of course without diluting the real substance of what is on stake).
Thanks.
- a.
On Aug 3, 2014, at 18:22 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
I think this looks good.
I would even like to see as an over arching request from us to have as many as possible participate in the development of the proposals we get to us. There might even be things all three groups get some consensus on together? If they detect that, why not have them tell us?
We will reach the day when we as part of our coordination activities must decide some proposals that reach us are on rough side of rough consensus. Either proposals not getting traction within each one of the communities (i.e. filtered out before proposals reaches us, but the proposals still get posted to us), or because we see the proposals be so different than what is proposed from the general consensus that we do not see it being possible to be integrated.
The more those "odd one out" proposals have been discussed _before_ we get them, the better. Otherwise that will be a delay for us. When we have to measure what the feeling is about them.
Regards, Patrik
On 3 aug 2014, at 15:22, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Would one way to address the breadth issue while considering the needs of channeling and efficiency be to:
1. At the outset, request the three proposals from the three communities. 2. Assure that those communities make public ways for non-members of the community to comment on their work. 3. From the outset allow comments on all ICG processes for transparency etc. 4. As we receive each proposal, publish it as a draft for consideration and accept comments on those proposals as well as comments on how the proposals may work together. 5. As we coordinate across the proposals to develop the NTIA submission allow comments across that process.
This could be considered inclusive without being disruptive or overwhelming.
As to accountability, I would perhaps ask people to only comment on linkages that should be considered between IANA transition and the larger ICANN accountability question. Issues specifically dealing only with ICANN accountability should be more appropriately routed to that committee.
Joe
On 8/2/2014 5:49 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Please FIND ATTACHED MY COMMENTS
Regards
K.ARASTEH
2014-08-02 23:15 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All,
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is still a draft, it is not final until it is formally approved by ICG in its formal first f2f meeting on 06 September ,due to the fact that there has been no ICG-approved text yet tghus it is subject to further comments and modifications.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG should take decisions regarding the process taking into account community comments. ICG should therefore make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding on any thing .
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from only the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own
individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community. I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
2014-08-02 19:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Richard,
On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
Dear Alissa,
Thank you very much for this. Since you are the chair of the ICG, I consider your comments to be very important. The chair discussion is ongoing, actually. Regardless, please do not consider my comments to be any more important than those of any member of the ICG. The chair role (and the interim chair role) is functional and lends no additional credibility to the person in the role (beyond the ability to deal with lots of logistics!).
What I deduce from your message below is that:
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is not actually a draft, it is final, at least with respect to the process for obtaining proposals for the transition.
Although there has been no ICG-approved method for commenting on the draft charter, we know from messages on this list that there have beeen proposals to modify the draft charter.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG (or at least its chair) is making decisions regarding the process without taking into account community comments.
I would have expected the ICG to make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding. I’m not sure why you deduce the above. My message explicitly described “[t]he thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward.” Importantly, it described “my understanding” of “what the ICG has proposed."
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community. I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
Best, Alissa
4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is arbitrary.
Thanks again and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46 To: Tamer Rizk; rhill@hill-a.ch; Stephen Farrell Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; ianatransition@icann.org; ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of any interested party is evident to some but not to others. I’m wondering if a clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward is explained below.
There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing components of the transition proposal:
(1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding how to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced IETF participants) are here to help. The process uses well established mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to successfully craft thousands of documents over the years.
(2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation (which I’m sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people need help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing that help.
(3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I haven’t seen any indication that participation will be somehow restricted. Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel — but certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the ICG could run.
If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate, where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an arbitrary group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process created de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the various IANA functions?
Alissa
On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk@inficron.com> wrote:
> Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to curtail our > feedback is that a viable path for our comments to be reflected in the > output of this process is not evident. If we desire an outcome that is > representative of a diverse set of stakeholder interests, then the ICG > should function to publicly aggregate input from those sources, merge > them into discrete, topic based proposals for review by the wider > community, and offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both > external and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group is > interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would > appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please refer to > the previous suggestions herein. > > Richard Hill wrote: >> Please see below. >> >> Thanks and best, >> Richard >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] >>> Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57 >>> To: rhill@hill-a.ch >>> Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; ianatransition@icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG) >>> >>> >>> On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote: >>> >>>> I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the >>> summary could well include a satement to the effect that >>> proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, in >>> consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be a >>> consensus proposal. >>> >>> Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge their >>> respective proposals before sending it to the ICG? >> Of course they should. But what is the role of the ICG if all the >> coordination is done outside ICG? >> >>> What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top >>> down process with consultations. >> Hunh? What I propose is the usual process. People make inputs, an >> editor >> collates them and produces a consolidated draft. People comment on the >> draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc. >> >> If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common proposal, >> why >> not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I don't call that "bottom >> up", >> I call that "pre-cooked deal". >> >>> Not good enough for me. >>> >>>> The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for comment, >>> as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it. >>> >>> Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course something >>> that will never happen. You know that as well as I do. >> There will surely be more objections at the end if people are >> discouraged >> from sending inputs and if their comments are not reflected in the >> output in >> some way (which may be an explanation of why the input was not >> included). >> >>> Patrik >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianatransition mailing list >> ianatransition@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition >> > _______________________________________________ > IANAxfer mailing list > IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Joseph, Patrik and Adiel for this exchange and the important points raised .. I believe 2 key success factors here would be: 1. Timely and clear communications to clarify the process and guide the submissions .. 2. Allowing time to go through several consultation iterations with the community, along the lines suggested by Joseph, to further ensure not only broader consensus of the final consolidated proposal but also trust in the followed process .. More concretely, I suggest: 1. In addition to, requesting the three proposals from the three communities (Joseph point 1 below) (through the draft led by Paul), 2. that we also post a clear guideline communication for communities other than the 3 above to: 2.1 encourage them to contribute their views through any of the 3 above mentioned communities .. and post all relevant information regarding their consultation processes (for example: email addresses to submit comments, websites, contact persons, group leads, current drafts, ...?) 2.2 encourage consolidated, broadly supported proposals 2.3 encourage community members to attribute themselves to any submitted proposal they fully agree to, rather than submitting a new one 2.4 clarify, if yet clear to us, ICG approach in consolidating and integrating submitted proposals, for instance, in case of conflicting views are we going to add both views and start a new consultation iteration? Are we going to choose only one? Which one? the more broadly supported? those submitted through stakeholder groups and/or cross community working groups? individual creative/out-of the-box submissions? Of course whatever the approach is, we will be making community consultation iterations, along the lines suggested by Joseph below .. 2.4' Alternatively, as I have just read in a recent message, we may agree to suggest that in order not to take on a greater decision-making role, that the community comments on proposals from the 3 above mentioned communities (if this is what we agree to do) .. In summary, I think it is most important that we discuss, make sure we agree and have a common understanding (if we are not, how can we expect the community to be clear about the process), post this suggested process/approach online, seek community feedback, set a deadline, and fine tune the process accordingly .. Thanks again for this useful discussion .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Adiel Akplogan Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 8:19 AM To: joseph alhadeff Cc: ICG Internal Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (wasComposition of the ICG) Thank you Joe and Patrick, and all please excuse my straight and non-diplomatic talk here, but I think we are not being consistent with our own discussion and agreement. I recall that we had this discussion in London and it was clear that we cannot restrict the contribution solely to the 3 groups (even if we expect each of them to run an open process where everyone can participate) but we have clearly highlight the fact (at least I made that comment) that we need to allow broader input and proposal even though __particular__ attention will be given to the one coming from the 3 main customers. We need to reaffirm this to the community (if it was not clear enough). We need to make the process as broader as possible as not everyone clearly identify themselves to these 3 main groups so it should be clear how their views reach to us. Maybe we have not been clear enough about that in our communication outside. Again my plea for us to collectively operate as ICG and not representative of our community view. We want it or not our work hold a political dimension for many around the world (genuinely or not) and we have, as ICG, to collectively accept that and try to carefully reflect that in our proceedings (of course without diluting the real substance of what is on stake). Thanks. - a. On Aug 3, 2014, at 18:22 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
I think this looks good.
I would even like to see as an over arching request from us to have as many as possible participate in the development of the proposals we get to us. There might even be things all three groups get some consensus on together? If they detect that, why not have them tell us?
We will reach the day when we as part of our coordination activities must decide some proposals that reach us are on rough side of rough consensus. Either proposals not getting traction within each one of the communities (i.e. filtered out before proposals reaches us, but the proposals still get posted to us), or because we see the proposals be so different than what is proposed from the general consensus that we do not see it being possible to be integrated.
The more those "odd one out" proposals have been discussed _before_ we get them, the better. Otherwise that will be a delay for us. When we have to measure what the feeling is about them.
Regards, Patrik
On 3 aug 2014, at 15:22, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Would one way to address the breadth issue while considering the needs of channeling and efficiency be to:
1. At the outset, request the three proposals from the three communities. 2. Assure that those communities make public ways for non-members of the community to comment on their work. 3. From the outset allow comments on all ICG processes for transparency etc. 4. As we receive each proposal, publish it as a draft for consideration and accept comments on those proposals as well as comments on how the proposals may work together. 5. As we coordinate across the proposals to develop the NTIA submission allow comments across that process.
This could be considered inclusive without being disruptive or overwhelming.
As to accountability, I would perhaps ask people to only comment on linkages that should be considered between IANA transition and the larger ICANN accountability question. Issues specifically dealing only with ICANN accountability should be more appropriately routed to that committee.
Joe
On 8/2/2014 5:49 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Please FIND ATTACHED MY COMMENTS
Regards
K.ARASTEH
2014-08-02 23:15 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All,
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is still a draft, it is not final until it is formally approved by ICG in its formal first f2f meeting on 06 September ,due to the fact that there has been no ICG-approved text yet tghus it is subject to further comments and modifications.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG should take decisions regarding the process taking into account community comments. ICG should therefore make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding on any thing .
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from only the 3 customer communities of IANA - representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own
individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of "membership" prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
2014-08-02 19:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Richard,
On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
Dear Alissa,
Thank you very much for this. Since you are the chair of the ICG, I consider your comments to be very important.
The chair discussion is ongoing, actually. Regardless, please do not consider my comments to be any more important than those of any member of the ICG. The chair role (and the interim chair role) is functional and lends no additional credibility to the person in the role (beyond the ability to deal with lots of logistics!).
What I deduce from your message below is that:
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is not actually a draft, it is final, at least with respect to the process for obtaining proposals for the transition.
Although there has been no ICG-approved method for commenting on the draft charter, we know from messages on this list that there have beeen proposals to modify the draft charter.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG (or at least its chair) is making decisions regarding the process without taking into account community comments.
I would have expected the ICG to make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding.
I'm not sure why you deduce the above. My message explicitly described "[t]he thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward." Importantly, it described "my understanding" of "what the ICG has proposed."
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from the 3 customer communities of IANA - representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of "membership" prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
Best, Alissa
4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is arbitrary.
Thanks again and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46 To: Tamer Rizk; rhill@hill-a.ch; Stephen Farrell Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; ianatransition@icann.org; ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of any interested party is evident to some but not to others. I'm wondering if a clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward is explained below.
There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing components of the transition proposal:
(1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding how to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced IETF participants) are here to help. The process uses well established mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to successfully craft thousands of documents over the years.
(2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation (which I'm sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people need help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing that help.
(3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I haven't seen any indication that participation will be somehow restricted. Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel - but certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the ICG could run.
If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate, where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an arbitrary group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process created de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the various IANA functions?
Alissa
On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk@inficron.com> wrote:
Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to curtail our feedback is that a viable path for our comments to be reflected in the output of this process is not evident. If we desire an outcome that is representative of a diverse set of stakeholder interests, then the ICG should function to publicly aggregate input from those sources, merge them into discrete, topic based proposals for review by the wider community, and offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both external and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group
is
interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please refer to the previous suggestions herein.
Richard Hill wrote: > Please see below. > > Thanks and best, > Richard > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] >> Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57 >> To: rhill@hill-a.ch >> Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; ianatransition@icann.org >> Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG) >> >> >> >> On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote: >> >>> I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the >> summary could well include a satement to the effect that >> proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, >> in consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be >> a consensus proposal. >> >> Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge >> their respective proposals before sending it to the ICG? > > Of course they should. But what is the role of the ICG if all > the coordination is done outside ICG? > >> >> What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top >> down process with consultations. > > Hunh? What I propose is the usual process. People make >inputs, an editor collates them and produces a consolidated >draft. People comment on the > draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc. > > If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common >proposal, why not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I >don't call that "bottom >up", > I call that "pre-cooked deal". > >> >> Not good enough for me. >> >>> The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for >>> comment, >> as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it. >> >> Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course >> something that will never happen. You know that as well as I do. > > There will surely be more objections at the end if people are >discouraged from sending inputs and if their comments are not >reflected in the output in some way (which may be an >explanation of why the input was not included). > >> >> Patrik >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > ianatransition mailing list > ianatransition@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition > _______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Alissa, Dear All Many of you and in fact all of you are right with some slight clarification First of all ,I agree with richard that the three entities already mentioned in the previous draft arae not the only constituencies of INTERNET MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH referred to other stakeholders . We have to consult them. It is rather very restrictive if we only consult those three Patrik is also right to be worried about a precooked approach I have told many times that the legitimacy of stakeholders commenting on the process to be clarified..If someone Under the name of stakeholder ,speaks on his or her behalf ,it does not reflect any views of stakehioldr but views of individual which should be considered on its value and merit I still see some defficiencies in identifying those who should be consulted , certainly they are not limited to IETF, RIREs and ICANN. Please carefully consider the delicate and complex issue before us REGARDS ka. 2014-08-04 11:39 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>:
Thanks Joseph, Patrik and Adiel for this exchange and the important points raised ..
I believe 2 key success factors here would be: 1. Timely and clear communications to clarify the process and guide the submissions .. 2. Allowing time to go through several consultation iterations with the community, along the lines suggested by Joseph, to further ensure not only broader consensus of the final consolidated proposal but also trust in the followed process ..
More concretely, I suggest: 1. In addition to, requesting the three proposals from the three communities (Joseph point 1 below) (through the draft led by Paul), 2. that we also post a clear guideline communication for communities other than the 3 above to: 2.1 encourage them to contribute their views through any of the 3 above mentioned communities .. and post all relevant information regarding their consultation processes (for example: email addresses to submit comments, websites, contact persons, group leads, current drafts, ...?) 2.2 encourage consolidated, broadly supported proposals 2.3 encourage community members to attribute themselves to any submitted proposal they fully agree to, rather than submitting a new one 2.4 clarify, if yet clear to us, ICG approach in consolidating and integrating submitted proposals, for instance, in case of conflicting views are we going to add both views and start a new consultation iteration? Are we going to choose only one? Which one? the more broadly supported? those submitted through stakeholder groups and/or cross community working groups? individual creative/out-of the-box submissions? Of course whatever the approach is, we will be making community consultation iterations, along the lines suggested by Joseph below .. 2.4' Alternatively, as I have just read in a recent message, we may agree to suggest that in order not to take on a greater decision-making role, that the community comments on proposals from the 3 above mentioned communities (if this is what we agree to do) ..
In summary, I think it is most important that we discuss, make sure we agree and have a common understanding (if we are not, how can we expect the community to be clear about the process), post this suggested process/approach online, seek community feedback, set a deadline, and fine tune the process accordingly ..
Thanks again for this useful discussion ..
Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Adiel Akplogan Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 8:19 AM To: joseph alhadeff Cc: ICG Internal Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (wasComposition of the ICG)
Thank you Joe and Patrick, and all please excuse my straight and non-diplomatic talk here, but I think we are not being consistent with our own discussion and agreement. I recall that we had this discussion in London and it was clear that we cannot restrict the contribution solely to the 3 groups (even if we expect each of them to run an open process where everyone can participate) but we have clearly highlight the fact (at least I made that comment) that we need to allow broader input and proposal even though __particular__ attention will be given to the one coming from the 3 main customers. We need to reaffirm this to the community (if it was not clear enough). We need to make the process as broader as possible as not everyone clearly identify themselves to these 3 main groups so it should be clear how their views reach to us. Maybe we have not been clear enough about that in our communication outside.
Again my plea for us to collectively operate as ICG and not representative of our community view. We want it or not our work hold a political dimension for many around the world (genuinely or not) and we have, as ICG, to collectively accept that and try to carefully reflect that in our proceedings (of course without diluting the real substance of what is on stake).
Thanks.
- a.
On Aug 3, 2014, at 18:22 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
I think this looks good.
I would even like to see as an over arching request from us to have as many as possible participate in the development of the proposals we get to us. There might even be things all three groups get some consensus on together? If they detect that, why not have them tell us?
We will reach the day when we as part of our coordination activities must decide some proposals that reach us are on rough side of rough consensus. Either proposals not getting traction within each one of the communities (i.e. filtered out before proposals reaches us, but the proposals still get posted to us), or because we see the proposals be so different than what is proposed from the general consensus that we do not see it being possible to be integrated.
The more those "odd one out" proposals have been discussed _before_ we get them, the better. Otherwise that will be a delay for us. When we have to measure what the feeling is about them.
Regards, Patrik
On 3 aug 2014, at 15:22, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Would one way to address the breadth issue while considering the needs of channeling and efficiency be to:
1. At the outset, request the three proposals from the three communities. 2. Assure that those communities make public ways for non-members of the community to comment on their work. 3. From the outset allow comments on all ICG processes for transparency etc. 4. As we receive each proposal, publish it as a draft for consideration and accept comments on those proposals as well as comments on how the proposals may work together. 5. As we coordinate across the proposals to develop the NTIA submission allow comments across that process.
This could be considered inclusive without being disruptive or overwhelming.
As to accountability, I would perhaps ask people to only comment on linkages that should be considered between IANA transition and the larger ICANN accountability question. Issues specifically dealing only with ICANN accountability should be more appropriately routed to that committee.
Joe
On 8/2/2014 5:49 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Please FIND ATTACHED MY COMMENTS
Regards
K.ARASTEH
2014-08-02 23:15 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
:
Dear All,
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is still a draft, it is not final until it is formally approved by ICG in its formal first f2f meeting on 06 September ,due to the fact that there has been no ICG-approved text yet tghus it is subject to further comments and modifications.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG should take decisions regarding the process taking into account community comments. ICG should therefore make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding on any thing .
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from only the 3 customer communities of IANA - representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own
individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of "membership" prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
2014-08-02 19:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Richard,
On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
Dear Alissa,
Thank you very much for this. Since you are the chair of the ICG, I consider your comments to be very important.
The chair discussion is ongoing, actually. Regardless, please do not consider my comments to be any more important than those of any member of the ICG. The chair role (and the interim chair role) is functional and lends no additional credibility to the person in the role (beyond the ability to deal with lots of logistics!).
What I deduce from your message below is that:
1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is not actually a draft, it is final, at least with respect to the process for obtaining proposals for the transition.
Although there has been no ICG-approved method for commenting on the draft charter, we know from messages on this list that there have beeen proposals to modify the draft charter.
2) Thus it appears that the ICG (or at least its chair) is making decisions regarding the process without taking into account community comments.
I would have expected the ICG to make proposls regarding the process and to submit them for public comment before deciding.
I'm not sure why you deduce the above. My message explicitly described "[t]he thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward." Importantly, it described "my understanding" of "what the ICG has proposed."
3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from the 3 customer communities of IANA - representing Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own individual community requirements/arrangements.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those should be the only proposals.
In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding IANA Stewardship and
ICANN accountability.
Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce the breadth and scope of the proposals.
Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the processes used in those communities.
Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder community.
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of "membership" prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.
Best, Alissa
4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is arbitrary.
Thanks again and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46 To: Tamer Rizk; rhill@hill-a.ch; Stephen Farrell Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; ianatransition@icann.org; ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of any interested party is evident to some but not to others. I'm wondering if a clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward is explained below.
There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing components of the transition proposal:
(1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding how to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced IETF participants) are here to help. The process uses well established mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to successfully craft thousands of documents over the years.
(2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation (which I'm sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people need help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing that help.
(3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I haven't seen any indication that participation will be somehow restricted. Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel - but certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the ICG could run.
If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate, where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an arbitrary group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process created de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the various IANA functions?
Alissa
On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk@inficron.com> wrote:
> >Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to >curtail our feedback is that a viable path for our comments to >be reflected in the output of this process is not evident. If we >desire an outcome that is representative of a diverse set of >stakeholder interests, then the ICG should function to publicly >aggregate input from those sources, merge them into discrete, >topic based proposals for review by the wider community, and >offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both external >and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group is >interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would >appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please >refer to the previous suggestions herein. > >Richard Hill wrote: >> Please see below. >> >> Thanks and best, >> Richard >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] >>> Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57 >>> To: rhill@hill-a.ch >>> Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; ianatransition@icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG) >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote: >>> >>>> I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the >>> summary could well include a satement to the effect that >>> proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, >>> in consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be >>> a consensus proposal. >>> >>> Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge >>> their respective proposals before sending it to the ICG? >> >> Of course they should. But what is the role of the ICG if all >> the coordination is done outside ICG? >> >>> >>> What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top >>> down process with consultations. >> >> Hunh? What I propose is the usual process. People make >>inputs, an editor collates them and produces a consolidated >>draft. People comment on the >> draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc. >> >> If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common >>proposal, why not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I >>don't call that "bottom >>up", >> I call that "pre-cooked deal". >> >>> >>> Not good enough for me. >>> >>>> The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for >>>> comment, >>> as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it. >>> >>> Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course >>> something that will never happen. You know that as well as I do. >> >> There will surely be more objections at the end if people are >>discouraged from sending inputs and if their comments are not >>reflected in the output in some way (which may be an >>explanation of why the input was not included). >> >>> >>> Patrik >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianatransition mailing list >> ianatransition@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition >> >_______________________________________________ >IANAxfer mailing list >IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org >https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On 4.08.14 11:53 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Alissa, Dear All Many of you and in fact all of you are right with some slight clarification First of all ,I agree with richard that the three entities already mentioned in the previous draft arae not the only constituencies of INTERNET MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH referred to other stakeholders . We have to consult them. It is rather very restrictive if we only consult those three Patrik is also right to be worried about a precooked approach I have told many times that the legitimacy of stakeholders commenting on the process to be clarified..If someone Under the name of stakeholder ,speaks on his or her behalf ,it does not reflect any views of stakehioldr but views of individual which should be considered on its value and merit I still see some defficiencies in identifying those who should be consulted , certainly they are not limited to IETF, RIREs and ICANN. Please carefully consider the delicate and complex issue before us REGARDS ka.
2014-08-04 11:39 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>:
Thanks Joseph, Patrik and Adiel for this exchange and the important points raised ..
I believe 2 key success factors here would be: 1. Timely and clear communications to clarify the process and guide the submissions .. 2. Allowing time to go through several consultation iterations with the community, along the lines suggested by Joseph, to further ensure not only broader consensus of the final consolidated proposal but also trust in the followed process ..
More concretely, I suggest: 1. In addition to, requesting the three proposals from the three communities (Joseph point 1 below) (through the draft led by Paul), 2. that we also post a clear guideline communication for communities other than the 3 above to: 2.1 encourage them to contribute their views through any of the 3 above mentioned communities .. and post all relevant information regarding their consultation processes (for example: email addresses to submit comments, websites, contact persons, group leads, current drafts, ...?) 2.2 encourage consolidated, broadly supported proposals 2.3 encourage community members to attribute themselves to any submitted proposal they fully agree to, rather than submitting a new one 2.4 clarify, if yet clear to us, ICG approach in consolidating and integrating submitted proposals, for instance, in case of conflicting views are we going to add both views and start a new consultation iteration? Are we going to choose only one? Which one? the more broadly supported? those submitted through stakeholder groups and/or cross community working groups? individual creative/out-of the-box submissions? Of course whatever the approach is, we will be making community consultation iterations, along the lines suggested by Joseph below .. 2.4' Alternatively, as I have just read in a recent message, we may agree to suggest that in order not to take on a greater decision-making role, that the community comments on proposals from the 3 above mentioned communities (if this is what we agree to do) ..
In summary, I think it is most important that we discuss, make sure we agree and have a common understanding (if we are not, how can we expect the community to be clear about the process), post this suggested process/approach online, seek community feedback, set a deadline, and fine tune the process accordingly ..
Thanks again for this useful discussion ..
Kind Regards --Manal
Kavouss, Manal, the charter and the RFP together should speak to all these points and I believe we have touched on most of them in our discussions in London. So I suggest that we work on the text of these two documents making sure that all important points are covered. Daniel
participants (7)
-
Adiel Akplogan -
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Manal Ismail -
Patrik Fältström