Thinking about the assessment process
Hi all, At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here: (1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal. (2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited. (3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus. (4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives. From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated. Thanks, Alissa * https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...
Alissa,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks for this. I think this is reasonable. Jari
On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me. I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions. For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities. As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG. Daniel
Thank you Alissa for your thoughts on the process. Following on Daniel's initiative, and for the sake of transparency, here is how I have been interacting with ALAC which designated me to be a member of the ICG: Immediately after my designation, I suggested that ALAC set up an Ad-hoc Working Group (WG), in order to follow developments in the ICG, and prepare contributions for the "proposal" stage. On average, this WG has held conference calls once a week, during which typically Mohamed and I were invited to give an update on ICG work. In late 2014, ALAC elected a new chair (Alan Greenberg), who agreed that Olivier Crépin-Leblond (his predecessor as ALAC Chair) would continue to chair this WG. Conversely, my participation in the formulation of ALAC positions on Transition has been voluntarily limited to ensuring that data being used was accurate, that there was sufficient awareness regarding timeline and process, and to avoid straying from agreed objectives. In doing this, I avoided promoting any particular point of view on policy choices, because it was/is my belief that, as a representative of ALAC and more generally of the Internet user community, my duty is to convey their expectations or concerns to the ICG, rather than to advocate a particular outcome. Regarding Alissa's suggestion that the assessment of each contribution by "affected parties" should include "insiders" as well as "outsiders", I volunteer to help assess Names, Protocol Parameters, and contributions from the Internet user community. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Mercredi 7 Janvier 2015 09:31:11 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me. I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions. For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities. As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thank you Alissa, I also think this is a reasonable process. And, I particularly like Daniel's suggestion below. As an IAB appointee to the ICG, I followed very carefully the process followed by the IETF, participating in associated Working Group/review processes. I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names or number communities beyond reading publicly available documents. Best regards, Lynn On Jan 7, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
ALL,Thanks Alissa for this proposal. I wish to lend my voice in supporting Daniel's suggestion. I think it is the best path to follow in implementing the agreed procedure for this aspect of our task and upholding the safeguards.I therefore state below that: I have been fully involved in the CWG of the Naming community in developing its transition proposal, being a ccTLD Registry operator and representative of ccNSO in the ICG. I was never involved in both Protocol Parameters and Numbers communities' process of development of their transition proposals. Happy New Year All. May the 2014 Team work and spirit be strengthened in 2015 as we commit to collaborate, cooperate, consider others views, while facing the difficult phase of the ICG work squarely. BRMary Uduma On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 8:37 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote: Thank you Alissa, I also think this is a reasonable process. And, I particularly like Daniel's suggestion below. As an IAB appointee to the ICG, I followed very carefully the process followed by the IETF, participating in associated Working Group/review processes. I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names or number communities beyond reading publicly available documents. Best regards, Lynn On Jan 7, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I was heavily involved in the protocol parameters response from the IETT. I have not been involved with the creation of the responses from the names or number communities beyond reading publicly available documents. Russ On Jan 7, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
This all looks good to me, although I suspect for the next few weeks those of us on the names side remain quite busy. I agree with Daniel's suggestion: a good reminder to be open about our activities. I have been involved in the cross-community working group developing a names proposal as a participant on behalf of my employer (Nominet, .uk) and as a liaison for the ICG. I am also a participant in the CCWG-ICANN Accountability on behalf of Nominet. I have not engaged in the number or protocol parameter processes at all. Best Martin -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley Sent: 07 January 2015 23:25 To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process I was heavily involved in the protocol parameters response from the IETT. I have not been involved with the creation of the responses from the names or number communities beyond reading publicly available documents. Russ On Jan 7, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Good suggestion, Daniel. I was an active commenter/reviewer of the protocol parameters response from the IETF, and I sit on the steering group that approved it for publication. I have not been involved with the creation of the response from the numbering community beyond reading publicly available documents. I am listed as a participant in the names community CWG. My involvement has been limited to reading the mailing list, providing an occasional opinion here and there, and occasionally joining the calls. Alissa On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel
Dear all, I’ll go along with Alissa on this one and to respond to Daniel’s suggestion: I have been involved in the cross-community working group developing a names proposal as a liaison for the ICG, also following the number and protocol parameter processes, but no actual participation in the creation of the proposal at all. I’d like to volunteer in the assessment of the proposal. Best Regards, -- Dr. Xiaodong Lee
在 2015年1月9日，03:46，Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> 写道：
Good suggestion, Daniel.
I was an active commenter/reviewer of the protocol parameters response from the IETF, and I sit on the steering group that approved it for publication.
I have not been involved with the creation of the response from the numbering community beyond reading publicly available documents.
I am listed as a participant in the names community CWG. My involvement has been limited to reading the mailing list, providing an occasional opinion here and there, and occasionally joining the calls.
Alissa
On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote: Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Like others, I like this idea, Daniel. I have followed passively the work on parameters in IETF as I have because of my historical engagement in IETF and active participation in IETF/IANA work (for example as a so called "appointed expert" for a couple of parameters). I have not been involved with the creation of the response from the numbering community. Not even due to my day job as a different person at Netnod (Nurani Nimpuno) is following that track. I have no idea what they are doing. I am chair of Security and Stability Advisory Committee in ICANN and in that role over all responsible for the statements SSAC make based on the consensus based process we are using. We have published SAC-067, SAC-068 and specifically SAC-069 that give recommendations that specifically are targeted at the names community although they can be extrapolated to other communities. SSAC do have other individuals (Robert Guerra and Jaap Akkerhuis) that are representatives in CWG, so that I personally as chair of SSAC and co-chair of ICG can be on arms length distance from the content of the names work. That said, I have in a personal capacity been asked to engage more in review of the names CWG proposal, specifically last week, which I also have accepted. I have also worked with IANA in general for many years, including the fact I was very much involved in the initial creation of the system we have today. So, I would say I am: - Passive follower of the protocol work - Outsider for the numbers work - Insider regarding the names work Patrik On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I will respond with the following disclosures: I am on the ARIN Advisory Council and thus play a role in the numbers world, but other than urging the NRO to work through a global committee rather than regional ones, I have not followed or participated in the numbers (CRISP) work either at the regional or global level. I hold Executive Committee position within the GNSO Noncommercial Stakeholders Group and am an active participant in the names CWG. I followed the IANAPlan IETF fairly actively but on the whole was a marginal(ized) participant. Using Patrik's useful template, I am: - Outsider for the numbers work - Insider for the names work - Follower of and commentator on the protocols work
-----Original Message-----
- Passive follower of the protocol work
- Outsider for the numbers work
- Insider regarding the names work
Patrik
On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly- finalization-24dec14-en.pdf
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
A 2015-01-09 16:05 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
I will respond with the following disclosures:
I am on the ARIN Advisory Council and thus play a role in the numbers world, but other than urging the NRO to work through a global committee rather than regional ones, I have not followed or participated in the numbers (CRISP) work either at the regional or global level.
I hold Executive Committee position within the GNSO Noncommercial Stakeholders Group and am an active participant in the names CWG.
I followed the IANAPlan IETF fairly actively but on the whole was a marginal(ized) participant.
Using Patrik's useful template, I am:
- Outsider for the numbers work - Insider for the names work - Follower of and commentator on the protocols work
-----Original Message-----
- Passive follower of the protocol work
- Outsider for the numbers work
- Insider regarding the names work
Patrik
On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly- finalization-24dec14-en.pdf
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, I am volunteer to take care of accountabilty part of the transition function . I would be happy to work with whoever is voluteering on that matter Kavouss 2015-01-10 16:38 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
A
2015-01-09 16:05 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
I will respond with the following disclosures:
I am on the ARIN Advisory Council and thus play a role in the numbers world, but other than urging the NRO to work through a global committee rather than regional ones, I have not followed or participated in the numbers (CRISP) work either at the regional or global level.
I hold Executive Committee position within the GNSO Noncommercial Stakeholders Group and am an active participant in the names CWG.
I followed the IANAPlan IETF fairly actively but on the whole was a marginal(ized) participant.
Using Patrik's useful template, I am:
- Outsider for the numbers work - Insider for the names work - Follower of and commentator on the protocols work
-----Original Message-----
- Passive follower of the protocol work
- Outsider for the numbers work
- Insider regarding the names work
Patrik
On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
*
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-
finalization-24dec14-en.pdf
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I know nothing about the Numbers work .. Despite joining the mailing list, I was not able to follow the Protocols work .. I follow closely the Names work and Accountability discussions and contribute views through GAC discussions and other GAC representatives .. Kind regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 5:40 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process Alissa, I am volunteer to take care of accountabilty part of the transition function . I would be happy to work with whoever is voluteering on that matter Kavouss 2015-01-10 16:38 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: A 2015-01-09 16:05 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>: I will respond with the following disclosures: I am on the ARIN Advisory Council and thus play a role in the numbers world, but other than urging the NRO to work through a global committee rather than regional ones, I have not followed or participated in the numbers (CRISP) work either at the regional or global level. I hold Executive Committee position within the GNSO Noncommercial Stakeholders Group and am an active participant in the names CWG. I followed the IANAPlan IETF fairly actively but on the whole was a marginal(ized) participant. Using Patrik's useful template, I am: - Outsider for the numbers work - Insider for the names work - Follower of and commentator on the protocols work
-----Original Message-----
- Passive follower of the protocol work
- Outsider for the numbers work
- Insider regarding the names work
Patrik
On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly- finalization-24dec14-en.pdf
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I agree to the proposed process. I am a participant of the cross-community working group developing a names proposal as well as the CCWG-ICANN Accountability. No participation in the number or protocol parameter process. I’d like to volunteer in the assessment of either numbers or protocol proposals and of the names proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 11:30 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh ; Milton L Mueller Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process I know nothing about the Numbers work .. Despite joining the mailing list, I was not able to follow the Protocols work .. I follow closely the Names work and Accountability discussions and contribute views through GAC discussions and other GAC representatives .. Kind regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 5:40 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process Alissa, I am volunteer to take care of accountabilty part of the transition function . I would be happy to work with whoever is voluteering on that matter Kavouss 2015-01-10 16:38 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: A 2015-01-09 16:05 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>: I will respond with the following disclosures: I am on the ARIN Advisory Council and thus play a role in the numbers world, but other than urging the NRO to work through a global committee rather than regional ones, I have not followed or participated in the numbers (CRISP) work either at the regional or global level. I hold Executive Committee position within the GNSO Noncommercial Stakeholders Group and am an active participant in the names CWG. I followed the IANAPlan IETF fairly actively but on the whole was a marginal(ized) participant. Using Patrik's useful template, I am: - Outsider for the numbers work - Insider for the names work - Follower of and commentator on the protocols work
-----Original Message-----
- Passive follower of the protocol work
- Outsider for the numbers work
- Insider regarding the names work
Patrik
On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly- finalization-24dec14-en.pdf
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear all, i have followed and currently following all activities of CCWG and in fact one of the main contributors for that . I am spending several hours in the e-mail discussion and strongly defending the views of Governments. As I informed you before, I am volunteered to closely work with those interested in the accountability part of IANA transition related ICG activities. Regards Kavouss 2015-01-11 11:01 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
I agree to the proposed process.
I am a participant of the cross-community working group developing a names proposal as well as the CCWG-ICANN Accountability. No participation in the number or protocol parameter process.
I’d like to volunteer in the assessment of either numbers or protocol proposals *and* of the names proposal.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Sent:* Saturday, January 10, 2015 11:30 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> ; Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process
I know nothing about the Numbers work ..
Despite joining the mailing list, I was not able to follow the Protocols work ..
I follow closely the Names work and Accountability discussions and contribute views through GAC discussions and other GAC representatives ..
Kind regards
--Manal
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Saturday, January 10, 2015 5:40 PM *To:* Milton L Mueller *Cc:* ICG *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process
Alissa,
I am volunteer to take care of accountabilty part of the transition function .
I would be happy to work with whoever is voluteering on that matter
Kavouss
2015-01-10 16:38 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
A
2015-01-09 16:05 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
I will respond with the following disclosures:
I am on the ARIN Advisory Council and thus play a role in the numbers world, but other than urging the NRO to work through a global committee rather than regional ones, I have not followed or participated in the numbers (CRISP) work either at the regional or global level.
I hold Executive Committee position within the GNSO Noncommercial Stakeholders Group and am an active participant in the names CWG.
I followed the IANAPlan IETF fairly actively but on the whole was a marginal(ized) participant.
Using Patrik's useful template, I am:
- Outsider for the numbers work - Insider for the names work - Follower of and commentator on the protocols work
-----Original Message-----
- Passive follower of the protocol work
- Outsider for the numbers work
- Insider regarding the names work
Patrik
On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly- finalization-24dec14-en.pdf
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I am an ICG liaison to the ICANN Accountability CCWG (along with Kavouss). I am a participant in the ICANN Accountability CCWG. I have not been personally active in the IANA Transition Naming CWG. I have had no participation in the protocol parameters or numbering proposals or community processes. I will volunteer to participate in the assessment of either the numbers or protocol parameters proposals, and of the names proposal. Thanks, Keith Drazek From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 5:02 AM To: Manal Ismail; Kavouss Arasteh; Milton L Mueller Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process I agree to the proposed process. I am a participant of the cross-community working group developing a names proposal as well as the CCWG-ICANN Accountability. No participation in the number or protocol parameter process. I’d like to volunteer in the assessment of either numbers or protocol proposals and of the names proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 11:30 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> ; Milton L Mueller<mailto:mueller@syr.edu> Cc: ICG<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process I know nothing about the Numbers work .. Despite joining the mailing list, I was not able to follow the Protocols work .. I follow closely the Names work and Accountability discussions and contribute views through GAC discussions and other GAC representatives .. Kind regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 5:40 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process Alissa, I am volunteer to take care of accountabilty part of the transition function . I would be happy to work with whoever is voluteering on that matter Kavouss 2015-01-10 16:38 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: A 2015-01-09 16:05 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>: I will respond with the following disclosures: I am on the ARIN Advisory Council and thus play a role in the numbers world, but other than urging the NRO to work through a global committee rather than regional ones, I have not followed or participated in the numbers (CRISP) work either at the regional or global level. I hold Executive Committee position within the GNSO Noncommercial Stakeholders Group and am an active participant in the names CWG. I followed the IANAPlan IETF fairly actively but on the whole was a marginal(ized) participant. Using Patrik's useful template, I am: - Outsider for the numbers work - Insider for the names work - Follower of and commentator on the protocols work
-----Original Message-----
- Passive follower of the protocol work
- Outsider for the numbers work
- Insider regarding the names work
Patrik
On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net<mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly- finalization-24dec14-en.pdf
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ 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
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
Hello ICG Colleagues: In addition to the ICG, I am observing (but not actively participating) on the CWG developing the Naming proposal. I am a “member”, representing the GNSO, on CWG-Accountability. I am not participating in the development of proposals from the Numbers or Protocols communities, and would be happy to assist in the review of these proposals. Thanks— J. From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Date: Monday, January 12, 2015 at 10:28 To: ICG List <internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process I am an ICG liaison to the ICANN Accountability CCWG (along with Kavouss). I am a participant in the ICANN Accountability CCWG. I have not been personally active in the IANA Transition Naming CWG. I have had no participation in the protocol parameters or numbering proposals or community processes. I will volunteer to participate in the assessment of either the numbers or protocol parameters proposals, and of the names proposal. Thanks, Keith Drazek From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 5:02 AM To: Manal Ismail; Kavouss Arasteh; Milton L Mueller Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process I agree to the proposed process. I am a participant of the cross-community working group developing a names proposal as well as the CCWG-ICANN Accountability. No participation in the number or protocol parameter process. I’d like to volunteer in the assessment of either numbers or protocol proposals and of the names proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From:Manal Ismail<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 11:30 PM To:Kavouss Arasteh<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> ; Milton L Mueller<mailto:mueller@syr.edu> Cc:ICG<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process I know nothing about the Numbers work .. Despite joining the mailing list, I was not able to follow the Protocols work .. I follow closely the Names work and Accountability discussions and contribute views through GAC discussions and other GAC representatives .. Kind regards --Manal From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 5:40 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process Alissa, I am volunteer to take care of accountabilty part of the transition function . I would be happy to work with whoever is voluteering on that matter Kavouss 2015-01-10 16:38 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: A 2015-01-09 16:05 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>: I will respond with the following disclosures: I am on the ARIN Advisory Council and thus play a role in the numbers world, but other than urging the NRO to work through a global committee rather than regional ones, I have not followed or participated in the numbers (CRISP) work either at the regional or global level. I hold Executive Committee position within the GNSO Noncommercial Stakeholders Group and am an active participant in the names CWG. I followed the IANAPlan IETF fairly actively but on the whole was a marginal(ized) participant. Using Patrik's useful template, I am: - Outsider for the numbers work - Insider for the names work - Follower of and commentator on the protocols work
-----Original Message-----
- Passive follower of the protocol work
- Outsider for the numbers work
- Insider regarding the names work
Patrik
On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net<mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi all,
At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
(1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
(2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited.
(3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
(4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives.
From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated.
Thanks, Alissa
* https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly- finalization-24dec14-en.pdf
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me.
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ 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
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
To clarify my earlier declaration using Patrik's helpful template. - My role on the ISOC Board means I have a reporting line from protocols community. I have followed the discussion but not participated. [Insider] - I have similarly followed the numbering discussion. [Passive] - I have not followed the naming community discussions. [Outsider] Regards Narelle
participants (17)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Drazek, Keith -
James M. Bladel -
Jari Arkko -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lynn St.Amour -
Manal Ismail -
Martin Boyle -
Mary Uduma -
Milton L Mueller -
Narelle Clark -
Patrik Fältström -
Russ Housley -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques -
WUKnoben -
Xiaodong Lee