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