Re: [Internal-cg] Open operational community processes
Hopefully the responses from Narelle and Jari have cleared this up a bit as far as protocol parameters goes. I have some similar questions about the CWG process for names, however. I understand from <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Members+and+Observer s> that in the CWG there will be two different levels of participation: members and observers. Members will be appointed by ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC (the chartering organizations). Observers may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group not represented in the CWG, or self-appointed. Observers will be allowed to participate and contribute input, but their views will not be taken into account in determining consensus. Question #1: How will the CWG process yield an outcome that has “broad support” if the consensus call only takes into account the appointed members from ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC? What if a bunch of other interested parties disagree with the conclusion of the members? (I’m happy to be told that ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC comprise the full universe of all possible interested parties and all I or some government rep or whoever else has to do is join one of those groups to have my view heard. Or something else. Just curious about how broad participation in determining consensus will work.) Question #2: Observers are required to provide a Statement of Interest. Observers who are not part of a chartering organization are asked to use the gNSO procedures for doing so <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>. That page appears to require a username and password in order to access the SOI form. But I can’t find any place on the site where I can obtain a username and password. Can someone send a pointer? Question #3: The existing Statement of Interest form for gNSO seems to require public disclosure of a lot of personal information. Why is that required to participate in the development of the transition proposal for names? Thanks, Alissa On 9/6/14, 5:02 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
This is the same as my last message, but I changed the header (which I should have done last time). If you want to respond to me, please respond to this message not the other one.
-----Original Message----- Since then we've brought the draft RFP into our community, and the community is now busy working on an actual proposal. The first draft of that proposal is out. I think the IETF's questions about this topic are more in the proposal itself, and something we can work on ourselves, and at
I have a bit of a problem with this, sorry to say. While I think it's fine that people in IETF are developing ideas for proposals, the RFP makes it clear that the process in each operational community is supposed to be open and transparent, and include other interested and affected parties. I think it would be a travesty if we release the RFP and the IETF announces 5 days later that they are finished.
Even if this is presented as a "Draft," any different ideas coming from the outside would be dealing with what is in effect a sealed process, in which changes would not be welcome or even seriously considered. The IETF needs to convene a publicly announced, open process based on the RFP that we are developing.
--MM _______________________________________________ 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
Very good questions, Alissa. More specific responses in line below:
-----Original Message----- Question #1: How will the CWG process yield an outcome that has “broad support” if the consensus call only takes into account the appointed members from ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC? What if a bunch of other interested parties disagree with the conclusion of the members? (I’m happy to be told that ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC comprise the full universe of all possible interested parties and all I or some government rep or whoever else has to do is join one of those groups to have my view heard.
I was not able to play a significant role in the chartering of the CCWG by the GNSO/CCNSO, but made it clear to our NCSG reps that I did _not_ favor a member/observer distinction. The response I got was that in the more politically fraught world of DNS many of the stakeholder groups fear that the WG would be unbalanced with unrestricted participation. E.g., dozens of (pick your least favorite stakeholder group - trademark lawyers, civil society, registries, registrars, rastafarians, English octogenarians...) might "stack" the group and make it appear as if one option had predominant support, when in fact it was mainly supported by only one or two mobilized groups. The idea is that representation in the CCWG will be balanced for purposes of consensus determination, just as representation on our own ICG is, and any proposal that wins support among that representationally balanced group probably has broad enough support to be put up for public comment as a community proposal. While I personally still prefer the more open structure, I don't think this is an unreasonable view, especially given that the composition of the ICG itself is based on a similar logic. The putput of the CCWG, moreover, will have to pass some kind of open public comment test, afaik.
Question #2: Observers are required to provide a Statement of Interest. Observers who are not part of a chartering organization are asked to use the gNSO procedures for doing so <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>. That page appears to require a username and password in order to access the SOI form. But I can’t find any place on the site where I can obtain a username and password. Can someone send a pointer?
Ask ICANN GNSO staff for how to do this. Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Or maybe Wolf or Keith or someone more enmeshed in the tentacles of the GNSO council can tell you.
Question #3: The existing Statement of Interest form for gNSO seems to require public disclosure of a lot of personal information. Why is that required to participate in the development of the transition proposal for names?
I do not support this requirement at all, but, again, it is motivated by concerns over stealth stakeholder imbalances and conflicts of interest, as it is not unusual for people in the DNS environment to pretend to be, say, nonprofit when they are really stalking horses for some kind of business interest. I would hope the CCWG could be motivated to alter that requirement, as it constitutes a barrier with few compensating advantages. Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Hi Milton, Thanks, this is very helpful. A couple of comments below. On 9/9/14, 2:58 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Very good questions, Alissa. More specific responses in line below:
-----Original Message----- Question #1: How will the CWG process yield an outcome that has “broad support” if the consensus call only takes into account the appointed members from ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC? What if a bunch of other interested parties disagree with the conclusion of the members? (I’m happy to be told that ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC comprise the full universe of all possible interested parties and all I or some government rep or whoever else has to do is join one of those groups to have my view heard.
I was not able to play a significant role in the chartering of the CCWG by the GNSO/CCNSO, but made it clear to our NCSG reps that I did _not_ favor a member/observer distinction. The response I got was that in the more politically fraught world of DNS many of the stakeholder groups fear that the WG would be unbalanced with unrestricted participation. E.g., dozens of (pick your least favorite stakeholder group - trademark lawyers, civil society, registries, registrars, rastafarians, English octogenarians...) might "stack" the group and make it appear as if one option had predominant support, when in fact it was mainly supported by only one or two mobilized groups.
The idea is that representation in the CCWG will be balanced for purposes of consensus determination, just as representation on our own ICG is, and any proposal that wins support among that representationally balanced group probably has broad enough support to be put up for public comment as a community proposal. While I personally still prefer the more open structure, I don't think this is an unreasonable view, especially given that the composition of the ICG itself is based on a similar logic. The putput of the CCWG, moreover, will have to pass some kind of open public comment test, afaik.
Ok, I understand.
Question #2: Observers are required to provide a Statement of Interest. Observers who are not part of a chartering organization are asked to use the gNSO procedures for doing so <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>. That page appears to require a username and password in order to access the SOI form. But I can’t find any place on the site where I can obtain a username and password. Can someone send a pointer?
Ask ICANN GNSO staff for how to do this. Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Or maybe Wolf or Keith or someone more enmeshed in the tentacles of the GNSO council can tell you.
I wasn’t purely asking for myself — if this is what any outsider needs to do to participate, it might help for the process to be made clear somewhere.
Question #3: The existing Statement of Interest form for gNSO seems to require public disclosure of a lot of personal information. Why is that required to participate in the development of the transition proposal for names?
I do not support this requirement at all, but, again, it is motivated by concerns over stealth stakeholder imbalances and conflicts of interest, as it is not unusual for people in the DNS environment to pretend to be, say, nonprofit when they are really stalking horses for some kind of business interest. I would hope the CCWG could be motivated to alter that requirement, as it constitutes a barrier with few compensating advantages.
Me too! Thanks, Alissa
Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, Re Q#2 I've sent an email to Ken Bour from ICANN staff with cc to you. You may share with the list any further explanation coming from Ken. Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone
Am 09.09.2014 um 23:35 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Milton,
Thanks, this is very helpful. A couple of comments below.
On 9/9/14, 2:58 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Very good questions, Alissa. More specific responses in line below:
-----Original Message----- Question #1: How will the CWG process yield an outcome that has “broad support” if the consensus call only takes into account the appointed members from ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC? What if a bunch of other interested parties disagree with the conclusion of the members? (I’m happy to be told that ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC comprise the full universe of all possible interested parties and all I or some government rep or whoever else has to do is join one of those groups to have my view heard.
I was not able to play a significant role in the chartering of the CCWG by the GNSO/CCNSO, but made it clear to our NCSG reps that I did _not_ favor a member/observer distinction. The response I got was that in the more politically fraught world of DNS many of the stakeholder groups fear that the WG would be unbalanced with unrestricted participation. E.g., dozens of (pick your least favorite stakeholder group - trademark lawyers, civil society, registries, registrars, rastafarians, English octogenarians...) might "stack" the group and make it appear as if one option had predominant support, when in fact it was mainly supported by only one or two mobilized groups.
The idea is that representation in the CCWG will be balanced for purposes of consensus determination, just as representation on our own ICG is, and any proposal that wins support among that representationally balanced group probably has broad enough support to be put up for public comment as a community proposal. While I personally still prefer the more open structure, I don't think this is an unreasonable view, especially given that the composition of the ICG itself is based on a similar logic. The putput of the CCWG, moreover, will have to pass some kind of open public comment test, afaik.
Ok, I understand.
Question #2: Observers are required to provide a Statement of Interest. Observers who are not part of a chartering organization are asked to use the gNSO procedures for doing so <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>. That page appears to require a username and password in order to access the SOI form. But I can’t find any place on the site where I can obtain a username and password. Can someone send a pointer?
Ask ICANN GNSO staff for how to do this. Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Or maybe Wolf or Keith or someone more enmeshed in the tentacles of the GNSO council can tell you.
I wasn’t purely asking for myself — if this is what any outsider needs to do to participate, it might help for the process to be made clear somewhere.
Question #3: The existing Statement of Interest form for gNSO seems to require public disclosure of a lot of personal information. Why is that required to participate in the development of the transition proposal for names?
I do not support this requirement at all, but, again, it is motivated by concerns over stealth stakeholder imbalances and conflicts of interest, as it is not unusual for people in the DNS environment to pretend to be, say, nonprofit when they are really stalking horses for some kind of business interest. I would hope the CCWG could be motivated to alter that requirement, as it constitutes a barrier with few compensating advantages.
Me too!
Thanks, Alissa
Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ _______________________________________________ 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
participants (3)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Milton L Mueller -
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de