I have filled out most of the assessment form for the IETF / protocols response to our RFP. I've been waiting to finish it for the IANAPLAN WG to respond to the process challenges, trying to follow the list Unfortunately there is no clear response yet, the list is debating it. So I will wait a bit longer and turn in my draft assessment some time late tonight or tomorrow Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>
Milton, I have been responding today on the list, and from my perspective the case is closed, and I have suggested next steps (*). Not sure they affect the assessment. Do you have an early version of your assessment in the Dropbox or otherwise available? Jari (*) The list archive is here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/maillist.html and my e-mail is below:
I’d like to suggest a constructive way forward.
First, I think we should observe that the ICG process put the planning and proposal efforts on purpose into the community processes. Those are the processes that we run. They are probably not perfect, they are certainly not the only possible ones, but they are processes that have existed and evolved for decades. The IANA transition is not an opportunity to redefine these processes.
Second, the community has had a very clear opinion about matters, and re-opening discussions is not good practice. As usual, there are some issue where agreement was not universal. Disagreement with otherwise broad consensus is not grounds for re-opening a discussion.
Third, I want everyone to focus on the concept that we’ve completed a step but that is not the last one. Among other things, the transition might involve some contract-termination/negotiation/renegotiation. And even if it would be very convenient, even IETF consensus doesn’t allow us to sign stuff in the name of other organisations :-) Or resolve conflicts between the three community proposals. So I would suggest that we stick to our clear direction from the WG, sit back, and see what these additional steps will bring. We will see updates as ICG, IAOC, and others have something to say, and any changes of direction will obviously need community feedback.
Fourth, I wanted to go a bit back to the original e-mail that started this thread (finally!). As noted above, I think it would be inappropriate to start redefining the IETF process, and I think we’ve provided far more explanation about where we are and why than we’ve done in the approval process of most other IETF documents. One of the features of the IETF process is the expectation that most participants usually track the development of the community opinion, and conclusions are usually understood even before they are formally made. And when those conclusions get made, they can be brief, as the full discussion is visible on the mailing list archive.
Yet, I have been talking to Milton and he has a point about communities understanding their own process well, but it being more difficult for newcomers, and in particular, complete outsiders that view the events later. I’d like to suggest that we produce an informal explanation of the process that helps provide visibility to people at large about what happened in the development of the IETF proposal from IANAPLAN WG. This is not a rerun of the process, an official document, or an opportunity to re-open discussions, but I think it would help us in the coming months as more people will be asking about our proposals. I’ll work with the chairs to produce that.
Jari
Jari and all Here is my amended assessment of the IETF proposal. I've used your original one as the starting point and left tracking on so all can see where the changes were made. Because of the many changes, I've also included a 'clean' version with all changes accepted. I think we have different notions of what these assessments are supposed to do, which will become evident as you read it. This difference is intended to prepare the way for discussion at our Jan 28 and Feb 6 meetings.
-----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 7:56 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF assessment
Milton,
I have been responding today on the list, and from my perspective the case is closed, and I have suggested next steps (*). Not sure they affect the assessment.
Do you have an early version of your assessment in the Dropbox or otherwise available?
Jari
(*) The list archive is here: http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/ianaplan/current/maillist.html
and my e-mail is below:
I'd like to suggest a constructive way forward.
First, I think we should observe that the ICG process put the planning and proposal efforts on purpose into the community processes. Those are the processes that we run. They are probably not perfect, they are certainly not the only possible ones, but they are processes that have existed and evolved for decades. The IANA transition is not an opportunity to redefine these processes.
Second, the community has had a very clear opinion about matters, and re- opening discussions is not good practice. As usual, there are some issue where agreement was not universal. Disagreement with otherwise broad consensus is not grounds for re-opening a discussion.
Third, I want everyone to focus on the concept that we've completed a step but that is not the last one. Among other things, the transition might involve some contract-termination/negotiation/renegotiation. And even if it would be very convenient, even IETF consensus doesn't allow us to sign stuff in the name of other organisations :-) Or resolve conflicts between the three community proposals. So I would suggest that we stick to our clear direction from the WG, sit back, and see what these additional steps will bring. We will see updates as ICG, IAOC, and others have something to say, and any changes of direction will obviously need community feedback.
Fourth, I wanted to go a bit back to the original e-mail that started this thread (finally!). As noted above, I think it would be inappropriate to start redefining the IETF process, and I think we've provided far more explanation about where we are and why than we've done in the approval process of most other IETF documents. One of the features of the IETF process is the expectation that most participants usually track the development of the community opinion, and conclusions are usually understood even before they are formally made. And when those conclusions get made, they can be brief, as the full discussion is visible on the mailing list archive.
Yet, I have been talking to Milton and he has a point about communities understanding their own process well, but it being more difficult for newcomers, and in particular, complete outsiders that view the events later. I'd like to suggest that we produce an informal explanation of the process that helps provide visibility to people at large about what happened in the development of the IETF proposal from IANAPLAN WG. This is not a rerun of the process, an official document, or an opportunity to re-open discussions, but I think it would help us in the coming months as more people will be asking about our proposals. I'll work with the chairs to produce that.
Jari
Milton, Thanks for this. And in general, I like the style where the analysis provides some substance and points out things that were going on in the process. We do need to discuss the content on the call, however, and probably afterwards as there isn’t much time until the call. I’m not in full agreement with all parts :-) Jari
Milton, others, I wanted to get back to this topic since we did not have time to cover it on the call. First, while I make some observations below, it is not so much about trying to suggest any changes to a particular assessment. From my perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come from multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to agree on, but it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else? On the call on Wednesday I emphasised that the community opinion needs to direct what we do rather than an individual (e.g., someone who sends ICG a comment) getting to decide. But back to the IETF assessment. I don’t want to go into details; suffice it to say that each item highlighted in the assessment has been extensively discussed and weighed in the community, and an informed decision was made. And as noted, there will be further steps - I already promised to provide more useful information in one case, there might be some cases where alignment between different proposals leads to further work, and our legal counsel and other entities are working on contracts with the direction that the IETF community has given us. But I do want to bring up one item - openness. To be clear, our process has been open for anyone, including for instance, allowing anyone joining all discussions without prior arrangement and being taken into account in forming the group opinion, having discussions on mailing lists that are open, having remote attendance options in our meetings, all discussions from meetings continuing on the list, and so on. Anybody can have a say, and not merely observe. Of course, coming to a consensus (even rough) in a large community requires broad agreement. That everyone is invited to participate does not mean that everyone is 100% satisfied with the outcome in all cases. And everyone gets to take part in the process based on their perspective and background. In a community- driven organisation, the leadership doesn't get to favour any particular perspective over others. Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive processes here. Cheers, Jari
Hi Jari, if I may add a couple of points to your note, while waiting to hear from Milton :-), On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
Milton, others,
I wanted to get back to this topic since we did not have time to cover it on the call.
First, while I make some observations below, it is not so much about trying to suggest any changes to a particular assessment. From my perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come from multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to agree on, but it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else?
Assuming this was addressed to all the ICG, and I do think it would be good to hear what everyone thinks; this was my understanding of the purpose of our assessments. The most basic tenets of the IANA transition were 1 - that the work was going to be done in the operating communities and, 2 - that there were existing (and fairly long-standing) processes in place which were known to and had been vetted by those communities allowing them to arrive at their proposals. I believe these two things are essential to the credibility of the overall transition; and certainly preferable to making up new processes, especially as we are talking about on-going operations.
On the call on Wednesday I emphasised that the community opinion needs to direct what we do rather than an individual (e.g., someone who sends ICG a comment) getting to decide.
But back to the IETF assessment. I don’t want to go into details; suffice it to say that each item highlighted in the assessment has been extensively discussed and weighed in the community, and an informed decision was made. And as noted, there will be further steps - I already promised to provide more useful information in one case, there might be some cases where alignment between different proposals leads to further work, and our legal counsel and other entities are working on contracts with the direction that the IETF community has given us.
Jari, Milton, if I might also add that it is the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) that has the responsibility to address/negotiate legal questions/contracts on behalf of the IETF, and not the IANAPLAN WG. The IAOC does this based on specific direction from the IETF community/WG's, etc. - all openly debated and communicated. While some of the meetings with legal counsel may not be public, quite a number of the legal implications are discussed in IETF WG's, etc. with legal counsel present.
But I do want to bring up one item - openness. To be clear, our process has been open for anyone, including for instance, allowing anyone joining all discussions without prior arrangement and being taken into account in forming the group opinion, having discussions on mailing lists that are open, having remote attendance options in our meetings, all discussions from meetings continuing on the list, and so on. Anybody can have a say, and not merely observe. Of course, coming to a consensus (even rough) in a large community requires broad agreement. That everyone is invited to participate does not mean that everyone is 100% satisfied with the outcome in all cases. And everyone gets to take part in the process based on their perspective and background. In a community- driven organisation, the leadership doesn't get to favour any particular perspective over others.
and to say it even more directly, the leadership does not hold any special position or sway over a consensus outcome. Inclusiveness means that anyone gets to take part in the process, no matter what values they hold or experience they have. Leadership doesn't state the parameters. In a community-driven process, it is those that participate that choose what value to place on contributions, and this is what drives consensus. Hope this helps. Milton, I know you understand alot of this, but I thought it might be helpful to those a bit less familiar with the IETF processes. Best, Lynn
Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive processes here.
Cheers,
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Jari, What do you mean by Quote *" Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive> processes here." * Unquote Who sets the bar? What bar? What is the issue? We should CAREFUL of what? tj hanks Kavouss 2015-01-30 19:54 GMT+01:00 Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@lstamour.org>:
Hi Jari,
if I may add a couple of points to your note, while waiting to hear from Milton :-),
On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
Milton, others,
I wanted to get back to this topic since we did not have time to cover it on the call.
First, while I make some observations below, it is not so much about trying to suggest any changes to a particular assessment. From my perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come from multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to agree on, but it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else?
Assuming this was addressed to all the ICG, and I do think it would be good to hear what everyone thinks; this was my understanding of the purpose of our assessments. The most basic tenets of the IANA transition were 1 - that the work was going to be done in the operating communities and, 2 - that there were existing (and fairly long-standing) processes in place which were known to and had been vetted by those communities allowing them to arrive at their proposals. I believe these two things are essential to the credibility of the overall transition; and certainly preferable to making up new processes, especially as we are talking about on-going operations.
On the call on Wednesday I emphasised that the community opinion needs to direct what we do rather than an individual (e.g., someone who sends ICG a comment) getting to decide.
But back to the IETF assessment. I don’t want to go into details; suffice it to say that each item highlighted in the assessment has been extensively discussed and weighed in the community, and an informed decision was made. And as noted, there will be further steps - I already promised to provide more useful information in one case, there might be some cases where alignment between different proposals leads to further work, and our legal counsel and other entities are working on contracts with the direction that the IETF community has given us.
Jari, Milton, if I might also add that it is the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) that has the responsibility to address/negotiate legal questions/contracts on behalf of the IETF, and not the IANAPLAN WG.
The IAOC does this based on specific direction from the IETF community/WG's, etc. - all openly debated and communicated. While some of the meetings with legal counsel may not be public, quite a number of the legal implications are discussed in IETF WG's, etc. with legal counsel present.
But I do want to bring up one item - openness. To be clear, our process has been open for anyone, including for instance, allowing anyone joining all discussions without prior arrangement and being taken into account in forming the group opinion, having discussions on mailing lists that are open, having remote attendance options in our meetings, all discussions from meetings continuing on the list, and so on. Anybody can have a say, and not merely observe. Of course, coming to a consensus (even rough) in a large community requires broad agreement. That everyone is invited to participate does not mean that everyone is 100% satisfied with the outcome in all cases. And everyone gets to take part in the process based on their perspective and background. In a community- driven organisation, the leadership doesn't get to favour any particular perspective over others.
and to say it even more directly, the leadership does not hold any special position or sway over a consensus outcome. Inclusiveness means that anyone gets to take part in the process, no matter what values they hold or experience they have. Leadership doesn't state the parameters. In a community-driven process, it is those that participate that choose what value to place on contributions, and this is what drives consensus.
Hope this helps. Milton, I know you understand alot of this, but I thought it might be helpful to those a bit less familiar with the IETF processes.
Best, Lynn
Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive processes here.
Cheers,
Jari
_______________________________________________ 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
Lynn, Jari, all other colleagues: I was in a series of f2f meetings all day Thursday and Friday and am only now catching up with the email. I will respond to Jari and Lynn either later today (Saturday) or early tomorrow (Sunday).
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 1:55 PM To: Jari Arkko; Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF assessment
Hi Jari,
if I may add a couple of points to your note, while waiting to hear from Milton :-),
On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
Milton, others,
I wanted to get back to this topic since we did not have time to cover it on the call.
First, while I make some observations below, it is not so much about trying to suggest any changes to a particular assessment. From my perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come from multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to agree on, but it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else?
Assuming this was addressed to all the ICG, and I do think it would be good to hear what everyone thinks; this was my understanding of the purpose of our assessments. The most basic tenets of the IANA transition were 1 - that the work was going to be done in the operating communities and, 2 - that there were existing (and fairly long-standing) processes in place which were known to and had been vetted by those communities allowing them to arrive at their proposals. I believe these two things are essential to the credibility of the overall transition; and certainly preferable to making up new processes, especially as we are talking about on-going operations.
On the call on Wednesday I emphasised that the community opinion needs to direct what we do rather than an individual (e.g., someone who sends ICG a comment) getting to decide.
But back to the IETF assessment. I don't want to go into details; suffice it to say that each item highlighted in the assessment has been extensively discussed and weighed in the community, and an informed decision was made. And as noted, there will be further steps - I already promised to provide more useful information in one case, there might be some cases where alignment between different proposals leads to further work, and our legal counsel and other entities are working on contracts with the direction that the IETF community has given us.
Jari, Milton, if I might also add that it is the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) that has the responsibility to address/negotiate legal questions/contracts on behalf of the IETF, and not the IANAPLAN WG.
The IAOC does this based on specific direction from the IETF community/WG's, etc. - all openly debated and communicated. While some of the meetings with legal counsel may not be public, quite a number of the legal implications are discussed in IETF WG's, etc. with legal counsel present.
But I do want to bring up one item - openness. To be clear, our process has been open for anyone, including for instance, allowing anyone joining all discussions without prior arrangement and being taken into account in forming the group opinion, having discussions on mailing lists that are open, having remote attendance options in our meetings, all discussions from meetings continuing on the list, and so on. Anybody can have a say, and not merely observe. Of course, coming to a consensus (even rough) in a large community requires broad agreement. That everyone is invited to participate does not mean that everyone is 100% satisfied with the outcome in all cases. And everyone gets to take part in the process based on their perspective and background. In a community- driven organisation, the leadership doesn't get to favour any particular perspective over others.
and to say it even more directly, the leadership does not hold any special position or sway over a consensus outcome. Inclusiveness means that anyone gets to take part in the process, no matter what values they hold or experience they have. Leadership doesn't state the parameters. In a community-driven process, it is those that participate that choose what value to place on contributions, and this is what drives consensus.
Hope this helps. Milton, I know you understand alot of this, but I thought it might be helpful to those a bit less familiar with the IETF processes.
Best, Lynn
Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive processes here.
Cheers,
Jari
_______________________________________________ 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
-----Original Message----- From my perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come from multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to agree on, but it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else?
I agree that the assessments are for our internal use, primarily, but of course as they are exchanged on an open list others can see them, which is good. It would be good to have an accepted assessment for the ICG as a whole. In the IETF case I deliberately went into some detail describing the process issues because I wanted to set the bar a bit higher than others had done regarding how we assess the proposals. That does not mean there is a huge problem with the IETF proposal, only that we need to be very clear-eyed about what happened and how it happened. This is better than just rubber stamping things. To answer your question directly, any decision to ask a community for something should be based on an agreed, mutual assessment by the ICG. However, I would think that sending questions to an operational community would not require full consensus - if a significant group within ICG wants a question answered, I think we should let them ask it even if we don't share the same concern.
On the call on Wednesday I emphasised that the community opinion needs to direct what we do rather than an individual (e.g., someone who sends ICG a comment) getting to decide.
Sure. But as someone who studies politics and social activities for a living, I am always amazed at how very sophisticated technical people can be so simplistic regarding claims about "the community." The community is a collective entity and cannot speak, think or act. There must always be an individual or a group of individuals speaking for it, or a process (such as voting) for aggregating and expressing community opinion. So in the absence of recorded votes how does an external observer know who speaks for this "community" and who does not? Especially when "the community" is divided? That gap has been exploited by kings, politicians and dictators for ages. We cannot uncritically accept a random claim that "the community" (or "the people" or "the Volk" or the "working class") wants this or that. Accurately assessing community sentiment in the absence of an objective vote is not an insoluble problem, of course, but simply invoking "the community" doesn't work for me.
But back to the IETF assessment. I don't want to go into details; suffice it to say that each item highlighted in the assessment has been extensively discussed and weighed in the community, and an informed decision was made. And as noted, there will be further steps - I already promised to provide more useful information in one case, there might be some cases where alignment between different proposals leads to further work, and our legal counsel and other entities are working on contracts with the direction that the IETF community has given us.
I understand this. It would be best if this 'further work' can be incorporated into the ICG's final proposal.
Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive processes
I think the IETF process was very open but struggled with inclusiveness. There is a distinction between the two. To illustrate the distinction, imagine a process that is open in principle but a large and vocal faction of old-timers tells newcomers that their opinions don't count. One could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. Or imagine an organization or process dominated by men that says, "we are open to participation by women" and does indeed let them in, but then uses various mechanisms to marginalize and exclude the woman who were brave enough to participate. Again one could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. I am making a conceptual point here, not a concrete accusation. ;-)
On 2.02.15 3:41 , Milton L Mueller wrote:
... I think the IETF process was very open but struggled with inclusiveness. There is a distinction between the two. ...
Openness is much easier to judge objectively than inclusiveness. Inclusiveness is a very subjective concept. It is not uncommon for lack of effort to participate by some group to be 'justified' by lack of inclusiveness by a community. Daniel someone who supports quite successful bottom-up community processes for a living
Daniel, Others I do not think that we could or need to interprete what is " inclussiveness" This is a term used by ICANN, USG and others to claim that nobody is excluded. Now we want to interprete what does it means ? Let us not get into a new round of unnecessary discussion .$ I fully agree with Milton Analysis Regards Kavouss 2015-02-02 9:15 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:
On 2.02.15 3:41 , Milton L Mueller wrote:
... I think the IETF process was very open but struggled with inclusiveness. There is a distinction between the two. ...
Openness is much easier to judge objectively than inclusiveness.
Inclusiveness is a very subjective concept. It is not uncommon for lack of effort to participate by some group to be 'justified' by lack of inclusiveness by a community.
Daniel someone who supports quite successful bottom-up community processes for a living
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Milton, A few thoughts below. On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:41 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From my perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come from multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to agree on, but it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else?
I agree that the assessments are for our internal use, primarily, but of course as they are exchanged on an open list others can see them, which is good. It would be good to have an accepted assessment for the ICG as a whole. In the IETF case I deliberately went into some detail describing the process issues because I wanted to set the bar a bit higher than others had done regarding how we assess the proposals. That does not mean there is a huge problem with the IETF proposal, only that we need to be very clear-eyed about what happened and how it happened. This is better than just rubber stamping things. To answer your question directly, any decision to ask a community for something should be based on an agreed, mutual assessment by the ICG. However, I would think that sending questions to an operational community would not require full consensus - if a significant group within ICG wants a question answered, I think we should let them ask it even if we don't share the same c oncern.
I would be concerned if we went down this path because the community consensus processes can require significant effort and resources. For example, if the IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG. I think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered. Furthermore, I think it is that response that we need to agree on within the ICG — not necessarily a single assessment sheet per community. Having one or more assessment sheets is very helpful, but I think if we’re going to work towards some output from this step of the process, our time is better spent figuring out if we have any questions for the community and what those are, rather than perfecting an assessment sheet.
Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive processes
I think the IETF process was very open but struggled with inclusiveness. There is a distinction between the two.
To illustrate the distinction, imagine a process that is open in principle but a large and vocal faction of old-timers tells newcomers that their opinions don't count. One could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. Or imagine an organization or process dominated by men that says, "we are open to participation by women" and does indeed let them in, but then uses various mechanisms to marginalize and exclude the woman who were brave enough to participate. Again one could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. I am making a conceptual point here, not a concrete accusation. ;-)
I just want to note here that the ideals of open participation and complete inclusivity can be in tension. Under circumstances where anyone is allowed to participate in any manner they wish, it’s quite difficult to prevent Participant A from telling Participant B that his opinion doesn’t count — or foreclosing Participant A’s contributions of any sort -- because that involves limiting how Participant A engages in the process. In any case, in the context of the IETF proposal, I saw discussion on the basis of ideas, not on the basis of who was offering those ideas. There were pronounced agreements and disagreements among long-time participants, between newcomers and long-time participants, and among newcomers. Some ideas ended up in the rough. All pretty standard stuff in my experience. Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, Thank you very much for comprehensive reply What you are describing that A) Any querry or Comments, or concerns should not be sent to the operational community because Quote Example "if the *IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG"* Unquote. B) Quote " * I ( Alissa) think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered"* Unquote I conclude from the arguments you presented Concerns / comments received from a member of community SHALL BE IGNORED. THIS IS IN FULL CONTRADICTION WITH A BOTTON-UP INCLUSSIVE PROCESS THAT ICANN CLAIMS IN PLACE Sorry , there isd some difficulties in tzhe approach that you proposed Kavouss 2015-02-03 3:42 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Milton,
A few thoughts below.
On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:41 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From my perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come from multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to
agree on, but
it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else?
I agree that the assessments are for our internal use, primarily, but of course as they are exchanged on an open list others can see them, which is good. It would be good to have an accepted assessment for the ICG as a whole. In the IETF case I deliberately went into some detail describing the process issues because I wanted to set the bar a bit higher than others had done regarding how we assess the proposals. That does not mean there is a huge problem with the IETF proposal, only that we need to be very clear-eyed about what happened and how it happened. This is better than just rubber stamping things. To answer your question directly, any decision to ask a community for something should be based on an agreed, mutual assessment by the ICG. However, I would think that sending questions to an operational community would not require full consensus - if a significant group within ICG wants a question answered, I think we should let them ask it even if we don't share the same c oncern.
I would be concerned if we went down this path because the community consensus processes can require significant effort and resources. For example, if the IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG. I think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered.
Furthermore, I think it is that response that we need to agree on within the ICG — not necessarily a single assessment sheet per community. Having one or more assessment sheets is very helpful, but I think if we’re going to work towards some output from this step of the process, our time is better spent figuring out if we have any questions for the community and what those are, rather than perfecting an assessment sheet.
Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive processes
I think the IETF process was very open but struggled with inclusiveness. There is a distinction between the two.
To illustrate the distinction, imagine a process that is open in principle but a large and vocal faction of old-timers tells newcomers that their opinions don't count. One could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. Or imagine an organization or process dominated by men that says, "we are open to participation by women" and does indeed let them in, but then uses various mechanisms to marginalize and exclude the woman who were brave enough to participate. Again one could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. I am making a conceptual point here, not a concrete accusation. ;-)
I just want to note here that the ideals of open participation and complete inclusivity can be in tension. Under circumstances where anyone is allowed to participate in any manner they wish, it’s quite difficult to prevent Participant A from telling Participant B that his opinion doesn’t count — or foreclosing Participant A’s contributions of any sort -- because that involves limiting how Participant A engages in the process.
In any case, in the context of the IETF proposal, I saw discussion on the basis of ideas, not on the basis of who was offering those ideas. There were pronounced agreements and disagreements among long-time participants, between newcomers and long-time participants, and among newcomers. Some ideas ended up in the rough. All pretty standard stuff in my experience.
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Kavouss, My interpretation of what Milton was saying is that different groups of ICG members would send questions back to the operational communities and request formal responses as part of the Step I assessment process, possibly at different times. What I was saying is that I think it would be better for the ICG to gather all of its questions for the operational communities and send them together at one time with one request for a formal response. Alissa On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, Thank you very much for comprehensive reply What you are describing that A) Any querry or Comments, or concerns should not be sent to the operational community because Quote Example "if the IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG" Unquote. B) Quote " I ( Alissa) think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered" Unquote I conclude from the arguments you presented Concerns / comments received from a member of community SHALL BE IGNORED. THIS IS IN FULL CONTRADICTION WITH A BOTTON-UP INCLUSSIVE PROCESS THAT ICANN CLAIMS IN PLACE Sorry , there isd some difficulties in tzhe approach that you proposed Kavouss
2015-02-03 3:42 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>: Hi Milton,
A few thoughts below.
On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:41 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From my perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come from multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to agree on, but it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else?
I agree that the assessments are for our internal use, primarily, but of course as they are exchanged on an open list others can see them, which is good. It would be good to have an accepted assessment for the ICG as a whole. In the IETF case I deliberately went into some detail describing the process issues because I wanted to set the bar a bit higher than others had done regarding how we assess the proposals. That does not mean there is a huge problem with the IETF proposal, only that we need to be very clear-eyed about what happened and how it happened. This is better than just rubber stamping things. To answer your question directly, any decision to ask a community for something should be based on an agreed, mutual assessment by the ICG. However, I would think that sending questions to an operational community would not require full consensus - if a significant group within ICG wants a question answered, I think we should let them ask it even if we don't share the same c oncern.
I would be concerned if we went down this path because the community consensus processes can require significant effort and resources. For example, if the IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG. I think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered.
Furthermore, I think it is that response that we need to agree on within the ICG — not necessarily a single assessment sheet per community. Having one or more assessment sheets is very helpful, but I think if we’re going to work towards some output from this step of the process, our time is better spent figuring out if we have any questions for the community and what those are, rather than perfecting an assessment sheet.
Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive processes
I think the IETF process was very open but struggled with inclusiveness. There is a distinction between the two.
To illustrate the distinction, imagine a process that is open in principle but a large and vocal faction of old-timers tells newcomers that their opinions don't count. One could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. Or imagine an organization or process dominated by men that says, "we are open to participation by women" and does indeed let them in, but then uses various mechanisms to marginalize and exclude the woman who were brave enough to participate. Again one could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. I am making a conceptual point here, not a concrete accusation. ;-)
I just want to note here that the ideals of open participation and complete inclusivity can be in tension. Under circumstances where anyone is allowed to participate in any manner they wish, it’s quite difficult to prevent Participant A from telling Participant B that his opinion doesn’t count — or foreclosing Participant A’s contributions of any sort -- because that involves limiting how Participant A engages in the process.
In any case, in the context of the IETF proposal, I saw discussion on the basis of ideas, not on the basis of who was offering those ideas. There were pronounced agreements and disagreements among long-time participants, between newcomers and long-time participants, and among newcomers. Some ideas ended up in the rough. All pretty standard stuff in my experience.
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, I agree with that interpretation AND NOT WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED BY YOU Regards Kavouss 2015-02-03 21:15 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Kavouss,
My interpretation of what Milton was saying is that different groups of ICG members would send questions back to the operational communities and request formal responses as part of the Step I assessment process, possibly at different times. What I was saying is that I think it would be better for the ICG to gather all of its questions for the operational communities and send them together at one time with one request for a formal response.
Alissa
On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, Thank you very much for comprehensive reply What you are describing that A) Any querry or Comments, or concerns should not be sent to the operational community because Quote Example "if the *IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG"* Unquote. B) Quote " * I ( Alissa) think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered"* Unquote I conclude from the arguments you presented Concerns / comments received from a member of community SHALL BE IGNORED. THIS IS IN FULL CONTRADICTION WITH A BOTTON-UP INCLUSSIVE PROCESS THAT ICANN CLAIMS IN PLACE Sorry , there isd some difficulties in tzhe approach that you proposed Kavouss
2015-02-03 3:42 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Milton,
A few thoughts below.
On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:41 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From my perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come
from
multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to agree on, but it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else?
I agree that the assessments are for our internal use, primarily, but of course as they are exchanged on an open list others can see them, which is good. It would be good to have an accepted assessment for the ICG as a whole. In the IETF case I deliberately went into some detail describing the process issues because I wanted to set the bar a bit higher than others had done regarding how we assess the proposals. That does not mean there is a huge problem with the IETF proposal, only that we need to be very clear-eyed about what happened and how it happened. This is better than just rubber stamping things. To answer your question directly, any decision to ask a community for something should be based on an agreed, mutual assessment by the ICG. However, I would think that sending questions to an operational community would not require full consensus - if a significant group within ICG wants a question answered, I think we should let them ask it even if we don't share the same c oncern.
I would be concerned if we went down this path because the community consensus processes can require significant effort and resources. For example, if the IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG. I think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered.
Furthermore, I think it is that response that we need to agree on within the ICG — not necessarily a single assessment sheet per community. Having one or more assessment sheets is very helpful, but I think if we’re going to work towards some output from this step of the process, our time is better spent figuring out if we have any questions for the community and what those are, rather than perfecting an assessment sheet.
Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive processes
I think the IETF process was very open but struggled with inclusiveness. There is a distinction between the two.
To illustrate the distinction, imagine a process that is open in principle but a large and vocal faction of old-timers tells newcomers that their opinions don't count. One could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. Or imagine an organization or process dominated by men that says, "we are open to participation by women" and does indeed let them in, but then uses various mechanisms to marginalize and exclude the woman who were brave enough to participate. Again one could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. I am making a conceptual point here, not a concrete accusation. ;-)
I just want to note here that the ideals of open participation and complete inclusivity can be in tension. Under circumstances where anyone is allowed to participate in any manner they wish, it’s quite difficult to prevent Participant A from telling Participant B that his opinion doesn’t count — or foreclosing Participant A’s contributions of any sort -- because that involves limiting how Participant A engages in the process.
In any case, in the context of the IETF proposal, I saw discussion on the basis of ideas, not on the basis of who was offering those ideas. There were pronounced agreements and disagreements among long-time participants, between newcomers and long-time participants, and among newcomers. Some ideas ended up in the rough. All pretty standard stuff in my experience.
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Kavouss, I’m not sure what you are referring to. I basically made the same argument twice. Alissa On Feb 3, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, I agree with that interpretation AND NOT WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED BY YOU Regards Kavouss
2015-02-03 21:15 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>: Hi Kavouss,
My interpretation of what Milton was saying is that different groups of ICG members would send questions back to the operational communities and request formal responses as part of the Step I assessment process, possibly at different times. What I was saying is that I think it would be better for the ICG to gather all of its questions for the operational communities and send them together at one time with one request for a formal response.
Alissa
On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, Thank you very much for comprehensive reply What you are describing that A) Any querry or Comments, or concerns should not be sent to the operational community because Quote Example "if the IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG" Unquote. B) Quote " I ( Alissa) think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered" Unquote I conclude from the arguments you presented Concerns / comments received from a member of community SHALL BE IGNORED. THIS IS IN FULL CONTRADICTION WITH A BOTTON-UP INCLUSSIVE PROCESS THAT ICANN CLAIMS IN PLACE Sorry , there isd some difficulties in tzhe approach that you proposed Kavouss
2015-02-03 3:42 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>: Hi Milton,
A few thoughts below.
On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:41 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From my perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come from multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to agree on, but it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else?
I agree that the assessments are for our internal use, primarily, but of course as they are exchanged on an open list others can see them, which is good. It would be good to have an accepted assessment for the ICG as a whole. In the IETF case I deliberately went into some detail describing the process issues because I wanted to set the bar a bit higher than others had done regarding how we assess the proposals. That does not mean there is a huge problem with the IETF proposal, only that we need to be very clear-eyed about what happened and how it happened. This is better than just rubber stamping things. To answer your question directly, any decision to ask a community for something should be based on an agreed, mutual assessment by the ICG. However, I would think that sending questions to an operational community would not require full consensus - if a significant group within ICG wants a question answered, I think we should let them ask it even if we don't share the same c oncern.
I would be concerned if we went down this path because the community consensus processes can require significant effort and resources. For example, if the IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG. I think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered.
Furthermore, I think it is that response that we need to agree on within the ICG — not necessarily a single assessment sheet per community. Having one or more assessment sheets is very helpful, but I think if we’re going to work towards some output from this step of the process, our time is better spent figuring out if we have any questions for the community and what those are, rather than perfecting an assessment sheet.
Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive processes
I think the IETF process was very open but struggled with inclusiveness. There is a distinction between the two.
To illustrate the distinction, imagine a process that is open in principle but a large and vocal faction of old-timers tells newcomers that their opinions don't count. One could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. Or imagine an organization or process dominated by men that says, "we are open to participation by women" and does indeed let them in, but then uses various mechanisms to marginalize and exclude the woman who were brave enough to participate. Again one could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. I am making a conceptual point here, not a concrete accusation. ;-)
I just want to note here that the ideals of open participation and complete inclusivity can be in tension. Under circumstances where anyone is allowed to participate in any manner they wish, it’s quite difficult to prevent Participant A from telling Participant B that his opinion doesn’t count — or foreclosing Participant A’s contributions of any sort -- because that involves limiting how Participant A engages in the process.
In any case, in the context of the IETF proposal, I saw discussion on the basis of ideas, not on the basis of who was offering those ideas. There were pronounced agreements and disagreements among long-time participants, between newcomers and long-time participants, and among newcomers. Some ideas ended up in the rough. All pretty standard stuff in my experience.
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, Perhaps you forgot what you wrote Read my mail. pls AND SEE BELOW Kavouss Quoute Example "if the *IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG"* Unquote. B) Quote " * I ( Alissa) think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered"* Unquote I conclude from the arguments you presented Concerns / comments received from a member of community SHALL BE IGNORED. THIS IS IN FULL CONTRADICTION WITH A BOTTON-UP INCLUSSIVE PROCESS THAT ICANN CLAIMS IN PLACE Sorry , there isd some difficulties in tzhe approach that you proposed 2015-02-03 23:23 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Kavouss,
I’m not sure what you are referring to. I basically made the same argument twice.
Alissa
On Feb 3, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, I agree with that interpretation AND NOT WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED BY YOU Regards Kavouss
2015-02-03 21:15 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Kavouss,
My interpretation of what Milton was saying is that different groups of ICG members would send questions back to the operational communities and request formal responses as part of the Step I assessment process, possibly at different times. What I was saying is that I think it would be better for the ICG to gather all of its questions for the operational communities and send them together at one time with one request for a formal response.
Alissa
On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, Thank you very much for comprehensive reply What you are describing that A) Any querry or Comments, or concerns should not be sent to the operational community because Quote Example "if the *IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG"* Unquote. B) Quote " * I ( Alissa) think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered"* Unquote I conclude from the arguments you presented Concerns / comments received from a member of community SHALL BE IGNORED. THIS IS IN FULL CONTRADICTION WITH A BOTTON-UP INCLUSSIVE PROCESS THAT ICANN CLAIMS IN PLACE Sorry , there isd some difficulties in tzhe approach that you proposed Kavouss
2015-02-03 3:42 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Milton,
A few thoughts below.
On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:41 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From my perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come
from
multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to agree on, but it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else?
I agree that the assessments are for our internal use, primarily, but of course as they are exchanged on an open list others can see them, which is good. It would be good to have an accepted assessment for the ICG as a whole. In the IETF case I deliberately went into some detail describing the process issues because I wanted to set the bar a bit higher than others had done regarding how we assess the proposals. That does not mean there is a huge problem with the IETF proposal, only that we need to be very clear-eyed about what happened and how it happened. This is better than just rubber stamping things. To answer your question directly, any decision to ask a community for something should be based on an agreed, mutual assessment by the ICG. However, I would think that sending questions to an operational community would not require full consensus - if a significant group within ICG wants a question answered, I think we should let them ask it even if we don't share the same c oncern.
I would be concerned if we went down this path because the community consensus processes can require significant effort and resources. For example, if the IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG. I think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered.
Furthermore, I think it is that response that we need to agree on within the ICG — not necessarily a single assessment sheet per community. Having one or more assessment sheets is very helpful, but I think if we’re going to work towards some output from this step of the process, our time is better spent figuring out if we have any questions for the community and what those are, rather than perfecting an assessment sheet.
Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive processes
I think the IETF process was very open but struggled with inclusiveness. There is a distinction between the two.
To illustrate the distinction, imagine a process that is open in principle but a large and vocal faction of old-timers tells newcomers that their opinions don't count. One could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. Or imagine an organization or process dominated by men that says, "we are open to participation by women" and does indeed let them in, but then uses various mechanisms to marginalize and exclude the woman who were brave enough to participate. Again one could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. I am making a conceptual point here, not a concrete accusation. ;-)
I just want to note here that the ideals of open participation and complete inclusivity can be in tension. Under circumstances where anyone is allowed to participate in any manner they wish, it’s quite difficult to prevent Participant A from telling Participant B that his opinion doesn’t count — or foreclosing Participant A’s contributions of any sort -- because that involves limiting how Participant A engages in the process.
In any case, in the context of the IETF proposal, I saw discussion on the basis of ideas, not on the basis of who was offering those ideas. There were pronounced agreements and disagreements among long-time participants, between newcomers and long-time participants, and among newcomers. Some ideas ended up in the rough. All pretty standard stuff in my experience.
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
No, that's not what I was saying. I had no particular suggestion regarding the grouping of questions, in fact I would agree with you to consolidate them. What I suggested was that different groups should defer to each other regarding questions and not require hashing out full consensus for a question to be sent. I think you suggested in reply that this would be difficult because the OCs would have to re-run their entire process to answer the questions. I don't think most of the questions we have would require that. From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 3:15 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Milton L Mueller; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF assessment Hi Kavouss, My interpretation of what Milton was saying is that different groups of ICG members would send questions back to the operational communities and request formal responses as part of the Step I assessment process, possibly at different times. What I was saying is that I think it would be better for the ICG to gather all of its questions for the operational communities and send them together at one time with one request for a formal response. Alissa On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Alissa, Thank you very much for comprehensive reply What you are describing that A) Any querry or Comments, or concerns should not be sent to the operational community because Quote Example "if the IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don't think it's fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG" Unquote. B) Quote " I ( Alissa) think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered" Unquote I conclude from the arguments you presented Concerns / comments received from a member of community SHALL BE IGNORED. THIS IS IN FULL CONTRADICTION WITH A BOTTON-UP INCLUSSIVE PROCESS THAT ICANN CLAIMS IN PLACE Sorry , there isd some difficulties in tzhe approach that you proposed Kavouss 2015-02-03 3:42 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>: Hi Milton, A few thoughts below. On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:41 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From my perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come from multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to agree on, but it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else?
I agree that the assessments are for our internal use, primarily, but of course as they are exchanged on an open list others can see them, which is good. It would be good to have an accepted assessment for the ICG as a whole. In the IETF case I deliberately went into some detail describing the process issues because I wanted to set the bar a bit higher than others had done regarding how we assess the proposals. That does not mean there is a huge problem with the IETF proposal, only that we need to be very clear-eyed about what happened and how it happened. This is better than just rubber stamping things. To answer your question directly, any decision to ask a community for something should be based on an agreed, mutual assessment by the ICG. However, I would think that sending questions to an operational community would not require full consensus - if a significant group within ICG wants a question answered, I think we should let them ask it even if we don't share the same c oncern.
I would be concerned if we went down this path because the community consensus processes can require significant effort and resources. For example, if the IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input, reviews by area directors, etc. I don't think it's fair to put the communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple different times to address questions received by different factions of the ICG. I think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered. Furthermore, I think it is that response that we need to agree on within the ICG - not necessarily a single assessment sheet per community. Having one or more assessment sheets is very helpful, but I think if we're going to work towards some output from this step of the process, our time is better spent figuring out if we have any questions for the community and what those are, rather than perfecting an assessment sheet.
Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive processes
I think the IETF process was very open but struggled with inclusiveness. There is a distinction between the two.
To illustrate the distinction, imagine a process that is open in principle but a large and vocal faction of old-timers tells newcomers that their opinions don't count. One could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. Or imagine an organization or process dominated by men that says, "we are open to participation by women" and does indeed let them in, but then uses various mechanisms to marginalize and exclude the woman who were brave enough to participate. Again one could question the inclusiveness, not the openness. I am making a conceptual point here, not a concrete accusation. ;-)
I just want to note here that the ideals of open participation and complete inclusivity can be in tension. Under circumstances where anyone is allowed to participate in any manner they wish, it's quite difficult to prevent Participant A from telling Participant B that his opinion doesn't count - or foreclosing Participant A's contributions of any sort -- because that involves limiting how Participant A engages in the process. In any case, in the context of the IETF proposal, I saw discussion on the basis of ideas, not on the basis of who was offering those ideas. There were pronounced agreements and disagreements among long-time participants, between newcomers and long-time participants, and among newcomers. Some ideas ended up in the rough. All pretty standard stuff in my experience. Alissa
_______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
FWIW, I have felt a need to make a new version of my assessment, given the good points that Milton made in his version. This is based on Milton’s version and Jean-Jacques’ edits, but also makes several edits to highlight what I personally think is a correct characterisation of the situation. But indeed this is my personal assessment of the situation. I hope though that we might find some agreement on something along these lines. I can work with you and others during these two days to make edits as needed. (And in any case, the important question is not necessarily the assessment docs, but rather whether we the ICG will ask something from the IETF or not.) Jari
participants (6)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Jari Arkko -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lynn St.Amour -
Milton L Mueller