Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London.
Dear Colleagues, two weeks after our first Coordination Group (CG) meeting in London, I would like to offer a few remarks. FIRST, THERE IS A TENDENCY WITHIN OUR CG TO DISREGARD THE WIDER PICTURE. For most global Internet users, the NTIA statement about transitioning stewardship of the IANA functions, while undoubtedly implying that technical changes would be required, was primarily a political message about the United States' willingness to hand over that stewardship. And for the global user community, it is natural and acceptable that Washington, as the current custodian, requires certain conditions to be met before transition can be carried out. The fact that the timing of the NTIA statement may have something to do with the Snowden revelations does not diminish the value of the US proposal. To someone who follows US and world affairs quite closely, some attitudes displayed in the CG show little awareness of the fact that the intentions of the United States could be completely misunderstood. They also show little consideration for the user communities in non-affluent societies. When it became clear that the membership of our Coordination Group was heavily weighted in favour of a single geographic region (North America), one citizenship (11 US citizens out of 30 members), as well as business interests and technical operators, this was played down by several members of the CG as representing a "purely political" dimension and therefore not relevant to the matter in hand which, for them, should remain "purely technical". To illustrate my point: in London I was given the opportunity ( thank you Alissa ;-) ) to share a few thoughts about the geo-strategic challenges facing the Internet, and their possible implications for the task of the CG. In reaction, there was not a single question or remark: this was not the silence of approval, but a lack of interest in the topic. Rest reassured, I have no personal hangup about this; but I am concerned that the CG seems to be ignoring an important dimension. SECOND, SUCH A LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IS NOT WITHOUT RISK. In London, through an agreed process, we reached a documented decision in favour of 3 Co-Chairs. After London, some of you considered that you did not like this result, and took the initiative to set up a poll. I mention this topic of Chair structure because it encapsulates several of the problems facing us now. The composition of our CG is what it is, we're not going to change it now. But we owe it to the global community to show more sensitivity to some wider issues. Are we impervious to the writing on the wall? Quite a few in the global user community consider that the presence of US citizens, already so strong in the CG, would not be justified in the Chair structure and would in fact open our work to easy criticism, whatever the quality of that work. It has also been noted that the presence of business interests (already strongly represented in the CG) would be unjustified and unfair in the chair structure. Let me be clear: this is not about the merits or capacity of any individual, it is about over-representation and conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Members of the CG should be aware that they are under close scrutiny by the global community, and that the acceptability and credibility of their final plan for transition will also hinge on the perceived process by which this was developed. It is therefore important to demonstrate to the outside world that we operate in an orderly, efficient and fair fashion, and that we follow agreed processes and abide by our documented decisions. Deciding upon our own leadership structure is an important first test. We need a leadership structure that is the outcome of agreed process and which demonstrates the CG's commitment to its duty to act in the interests of the global stakeholder community. THIRD, THE WAY FORWARD IS NOT NECESSARILY CONTENTIOUS. Like all of us on this list, I'm not interested in confining myself to analysis or criticism. Here are my proposals moving forward: - Membership of the CG: let's just accept it as is. - Chair structure: for all the reasons already put forward by the ALAC, having 3 Co-Chairs from 3 different geographic regions will garner the widest support from the global community. This can be achieved in a simple and straightforward way by the Interim Chair declaring that the poll (the results of which are in any case open to widely differing interpretations) will be put to one side, that the CG will continue as agreed in London, and by calling for candidates for the 3 Co-Chairs. The timeline should be very short. - Global public interest: in the future, we need to consciously take into account the way in which our processes and choices may impact not only the operators and clients of the IANA functions, but more generally the global Internet community. This is the only way to ensure that the transition is a durable success. Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
Dear colleagues, thank you for your openly offered remarks, Jean-Jacques which I take very seriously. It seems to me that your observations - besides the question of membership and chair structure - make here the general point of how CIG members in future can trust each other. This question - as usual in diverse groups - is strongly related to the commonly understood and agreed process in finding decisions. Our group is still lacking such an agreement. In London we just agreed to follow the "rough consensus principle" but we understand and use different means for it: humming, polls, no objections raised on the email list etc. If we don't find a better way it will lead us deadlocked in almost every question to be decided. Therefore I am convinced that we have to go through this part to clearly define our decision making process. As a starter I attach an extract of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. I'm sure others may have similar approaches with additional ideas. It is worthwile to put this together and come up with a suggestion to be finalized at the Istanbul meeting. I'd be happy to be part of a small prep team. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 7:35 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London. Dear Colleagues, two weeks after our first Coordination Group (CG) meeting in London, I would like to offer a few remarks. FIRST, THERE IS A TENDENCY WITHIN OUR CG TO DISREGARD THE WIDER PICTURE. For most global Internet users, the NTIA statement about transitioning stewardship of the IANA functions, while undoubtedly implying that technical changes would be required, was primarily a political message about the United States' willingness to hand over that stewardship. And for the global user community, it is natural and acceptable that Washington, as the current custodian, requires certain conditions to be met before transition can be carried out. The fact that the timing of the NTIA statement may have something to do with the Snowden revelations does not diminish the value of the US proposal. To someone who follows US and world affairs quite closely, some attitudes displayed in the CG show little awareness of the fact that the intentions of the United States could be completely misunderstood. They also show little consideration for the user communities in non-affluent societies. When it became clear that the membership of our Coordination Group was heavily weighted in favour of a single geographic region (North America), one citizenship (11 US citizens out of 30 members), as well as business interests and technical operators, this was played down by several members of the CG as representing a "purely political" dimension and therefore not relevant to the matter in hand which, for them, should remain "purely technical". To illustrate my point: in London I was given the opportunity ( thank you Alissa ;-) ) to share a few thoughts about the geo-strategic challenges facing the Internet, and their possible implications for the task of the CG. In reaction, there was not a single question or remark: this was not the silence of approval, but a lack of interest in the topic. Rest reassured, I have no personal hangup about this; but I am concerned that the CG seems to be ignoring an important dimension. SECOND, SUCH A LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IS NOT WITHOUT RISK. In London, through an agreed process, we reached a documented decision in favour of 3 Co-Chairs. After London, some of you considered that you did not like this result, and took the initiative to set up a poll. I mention this topic of Chair structure because it encapsulates several of the problems facing us now. The composition of our CG is what it is, we're not going to change it now. But we owe it to the global community to show more sensitivity to some wider issues. Are we impervious to the writing on the wall? Quite a few in the global user community consider that the presence of US citizens, already so strong in the CG, would not be justified in the Chair structure and would in fact open our work to easy criticism, whatever the quality of that work. It has also been noted that the presence of business interests (already strongly represented in the CG) would be unjustified and unfair in the chair structure. Let me be clear: this is not about the merits or capacity of any individual, it is about over-representation and conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Members of the CG should be aware that they are under close scrutiny by the global community, and that the acceptability and credibility of their final plan for transition will also hinge on the perceived process by which this was developed. It is therefore important to demonstrate to the outside world that we operate in an orderly, efficient and fair fashion, and that we follow agreed processes and abide by our documented decisions. Deciding upon our own leadership structure is an important first test. We need a leadership structure that is the outcome of agreed process and which demonstrates the CG's commitment to its duty to act in the interests of the global stakeholder community. THIRD, THE WAY FORWARD IS NOT NECESSARILY CONTENTIOUS. Like all of us on this list, I'm not interested in confining myself to analysis or criticism. Here are my proposals moving forward: - Membership of the CG: let's just accept it as is. - Chair structure: for all the reasons already put forward by the ALAC, having 3 Co-Chairs from 3 different geographic regions will garner the widest support from the global community. This can be achieved in a simple and straightforward way by the Interim Chair declaring that the poll (the results of which are in any case open to widely differing interpretations) will be put to one side, that the CG will continue as agreed in London, and by calling for candidates for the 3 Co-Chairs. The timeline should be very short. - Global public interest: in the future, we need to consciously take into account the way in which our processes and choices may impact not only the operators and clients of the IANA functions, but more generally the global Internet community. This is the only way to ensure that the transition is a durable success. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I agree on the need for process and believe that looking to established rules is useful. This should be our first decision. I also wanted to clarify one point as to my recollection of the consensus in London; it was solely for 3 co-chairs to be selected by a volunteer process. Those were the only questions that were hummed. Anything else is a new proposal which gets us back to a need for process. Best- Joe On 8/4/2014 3:38 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear colleagues,
thank you for your openly offered remarks, Jean-Jacques which I take very seriously.
It seems to me that your observations - besides the question of membership and chair structure - make here the general point of how CIG members in future can trust each other. This question - as usual in diverse groups - is strongly related to the commonly understood and agreed process in finding decisions.
Our group is still lacking such an agreement. In London we just agreed to follow the "rough consensus principle" but we understand and use different means for it: humming, polls, no objections raised on the email list etc. If we don't find a better way it will lead us deadlocked in almost every question to be decided.
Therefore I am convinced that we have to go through this part to clearly define our decision making process. As a starter I attach an extract of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. I'm sure others may have similar approaches with additional ideas. It is worthwile to put this together and come up with a suggestion to be finalized at the Istanbul meeting. I'd be happy to be part of a small prep team.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 7:35 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London.
Dear Colleagues,
two weeks after our first Coordination Group (CG) meeting in London, I would like to offer a few remarks.
FIRST, THERE IS A TENDENCY WITHIN OUR CG TO DISREGARD THE WIDER PICTURE.
For most global Internet users, the NTIA statement about transitioning stewardship of the IANA functions, while undoubtedly implying that technical changes would be required, was primarily a political message about the United States' willingness to hand over that stewardship. And for the global user community, it is natural and acceptable that Washington, as the current custodian, requires certain conditions to be met before transition can be carried out. The fact that the timing of the NTIA statement may have something to do with the Snowden revelations does not diminish the value of the US proposal.
To someone who follows US and world affairs quite closely, some attitudes displayed in the CG show little awareness of the fact that the intentions of the United States could be completely misunderstood. They also show little consideration for the user communities in non-affluent societies.
When it became clear that the membership of our Coordination Group was heavily weighted in favour of a single geographic region (North America), one citizenship (11 US citizens out of 30 members), as well as business interests and technical operators, this was played down by several members of the CG as representing a "purely political" dimension and therefore not relevant to the matter in hand which, for them, should remain "purely technical".
To illustrate my point: in London I was given the opportunity ( thank you Alissa ;-) ) to share a few thoughts about the geo-strategic challenges facing the Internet, and their possible implications for the task of the CG. In reaction, there was not a single question or remark: this was not the silence of approval, but a lack of interest in the topic. Rest reassured, I have no personal hangup about this; but I am concerned that the CG seems to be ignoring an important dimension.
SECOND, SUCH A LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IS NOT WITHOUT RISK.
In London, through an agreed process, we reached a documented decision in favour of 3 Co-Chairs. After London, some of you considered that you did not like this result, and took the initiative to set up a poll. I mention this topic of Chair structure because it encapsulates several of the problems facing us now.
The composition of our CG is what it is, we're not going to change it now. But we owe it to the global community to show more sensitivity to some wider issues. Are we impervious to the writing on the wall? Quite a few in the global user community consider that the presence of US citizens, already so strong in the CG, would not be justified in the Chair structure and would in fact open our work to easy criticism, whatever the quality of that work. It has also been noted that the presence of business interests (already strongly represented in the CG) would be unjustified and unfair in the chair structure. Let me be clear: this is not about the merits or capacity of any individual, it is about over-representation and conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
Members of the CG should be aware that they are under close scrutiny by the global community, and that the acceptability and credibility of their final plan for transition will also hinge on the perceived process by which this was developed.
It is therefore important to demonstrate to the outside world that we operate in an orderly, efficient and fair fashion, and that we follow agreed processes and abide by our documented decisions. Deciding upon our own leadership structure is an important first test. We need a leadership structure that is the outcome of agreed process and which demonstrates the CG's commitment to its duty to act in the interests of the global stakeholder community.
THIRD, THE WAY FORWARD IS NOT NECESSARILY CONTENTIOUS.
Like all of us on this list, I'm not interested in confining myself to analysis or criticism. Here are my proposals moving forward:
- Membership of the CG: let's just accept it as is.
- Chair structure: for all the reasons already put forward by the ALAC, having 3 Co-Chairs from 3 different geographic regions will garner the widest support from the global community. This can be achieved in a simple and straightforward way by the Interim Chair declaring that the poll (the results of which are in any case open to widely differing interpretations) will be put to one side, that the CG will continue as agreed in London, and by calling for candidates for the 3 Co-Chairs. The timeline should be very short.
- Global public interest: in the future, we need to consciously take into account the way in which our processes and choices may impact not only the operators and clients of the IANA functions, but more generally the global Internet community. This is the only way to ensure that the transition is a durable success.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
_______________________________________________ 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 do not agree with the concept of " rough consensus " due to the fact that according to the international customary law ,there is no adjective for consensus. Consensus means merely consensus without soft or rough adjective Pls do not push us to follow the course of action or approach being used by IETF We are not IETF .We are coordination group on Transition of IANA function from NTIA to so-called multistakegholder community the constituent of which yet require clarification . We need to reach consensus not rough and not soft Regards K.ARASTEH 2014-08-04 11:36 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
I agree on the need for process and believe that looking to established rules is useful. This should be our first decision. I also wanted to clarify one point as to my recollection of the consensus in London; it was solely for 3 co-chairs to be selected by a volunteer process. Those were the only questions that were hummed. Anything else is a new proposal which gets us back to a need for process.
Best-
Joe
On 8/4/2014 3:38 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear colleagues,
thank you for your openly offered remarks, Jean-Jacques which I take very seriously.
It seems to me that your observations - besides the question of membership and chair structure - make here the general point of how CIG members in future can trust each other. This question - as usual in diverse groups - is strongly related to the commonly understood and agreed process in finding decisions.
Our group is still lacking such an agreement. In London we just agreed to follow the "rough consensus principle" but we understand and use different means for it: humming, polls, no objections raised on the email list etc. If we don't find a better way it will lead us deadlocked in almost every question to be decided.
Therefore I am convinced that we have to go through this part to clearly define our decision making process. As a starter I attach an extract of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. I'm sure others may have similar approaches with additional ideas. It is worthwile to put this together and come up with a suggestion to be finalized at the Istanbul meeting. I'd be happy to be part of a small prep team.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 7:35 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London.
Dear Colleagues,
two weeks after our first Coordination Group (CG) meeting in London, I would like to offer a few remarks.
FIRST, THERE IS A TENDENCY WITHIN OUR CG TO DISREGARD THE WIDER PICTURE.
For most global Internet users, the NTIA statement about transitioning stewardship of the IANA functions, while undoubtedly implying that technical changes would be required, was primarily a political message about the United States' willingness to hand over that stewardship. And for the global user community, it is natural and acceptable that Washington, as the current custodian, requires certain conditions to be met before transition can be carried out. The fact that the timing of the NTIA statement may have something to do with the Snowden revelations does not diminish the value of the US proposal.
To someone who follows US and world affairs quite closely, some attitudes displayed in the CG show little awareness of the fact that the intentions of the United States could be completely misunderstood. They also show little consideration for the user communities in non-affluent societies.
When it became clear that the membership of our Coordination Group was heavily weighted in favour of a single geographic region (North America), one citizenship (11 US citizens out of 30 members), as well as business interests and technical operators, this was played down by several members of the CG as representing a "purely political" dimension and therefore not relevant to the matter in hand which, for them, should remain "purely technical".
To illustrate my point: in London I was given the opportunity ( thank you Alissa ;-) ) to share a few thoughts about the geo-strategic challenges facing the Internet, and their possible implications for the task of the CG. In reaction, there was not a single question or remark: this was not the silence of approval, but a lack of interest in the topic. Rest reassured, I have no personal hangup about this; but I am concerned that the CG seems to be ignoring an important dimension.
SECOND, SUCH A LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IS NOT WITHOUT RISK.
In London, through an agreed process, we reached a documented decision in favour of 3 Co-Chairs. After London, some of you considered that you did not like this result, and took the initiative to set up a poll. I mention this topic of Chair structure because it encapsulates several of the problems facing us now.
The composition of our CG is what it is, we're not going to change it now. But we owe it to the global community to show more sensitivity to some wider issues. Are we impervious to the writing on the wall? Quite a few in the global user community consider that the presence of US citizens, already so strong in the CG, would not be justified in the Chair structure and would in fact open our work to easy criticism, whatever the quality of that work. It has also been noted that the presence of business interests (already strongly represented in the CG) would be unjustified and unfair in the chair structure. Let me be clear: this is not about the merits or capacity of any individual, it is about over-representation and conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
Members of the CG should be aware that they are under close scrutiny by the global community, and that the acceptability and credibility of their final plan for transition will also hinge on the perceived process by which this was developed.
It is therefore important to demonstrate to the outside world that we operate in an orderly, efficient and fair fashion, and that we follow agreed processes and abide by our documented decisions. Deciding upon our own leadership structure is an important first test. We need a leadership structure that is the outcome of agreed process and which demonstrates the CG's commitment to its duty to act in the interests of the global stakeholder community.
THIRD, THE WAY FORWARD IS NOT NECESSARILY CONTENTIOUS.
Like all of us on this list, I'm not interested in confining myself to analysis or criticism. Here are my proposals moving forward:
- Membership of the CG: let's just accept it as is.
- Chair structure: for all the reasons already put forward by the ALAC, having 3 Co-Chairs from 3 different geographic regions will garner the widest support from the global community. This can be achieved in a simple and straightforward way by the Interim Chair declaring that the poll (the results of which are in any case open to widely differing interpretations) will be put to one side, that the CG will continue as agreed in London, and by calling for candidates for the 3 Co-Chairs. The timeline should be very short.
- Global public interest: in the future, we need to consciously take into account the way in which our processes and choices may impact not only the operators and clients of the IANA functions, but more generally the global Internet community. This is the only way to ensure that the transition is a durable success.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
As a multistakeholder group, we can choose the approach that we want to adopt. When this was discussed in London, I did not hear anyone speak against use of rough consensus. In fact, we used hums to confirm that there was consensus for a few things. If you want to revisit the direction set in London, I think you need to tell us what you want to replace it. In my view, it is not sufficient for you to simply say that you do not like rough consensus because it lack a definition in one particular context. Russ On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:22 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, I do not agree with the concept of " rough consensus " due to the fact that according to the international customary law ,there is no adjective for consensus. Consensus means merely consensus without soft or rough adjective Pls do not push us to follow the course of action or approach being used by IETF We are not IETF .We are coordination group on Transition of IANA function from NTIA to so-called multistakegholder community the constituent of which yet require clarification . We need to reach consensus not rough and not soft Regards K.ARASTEH
2014-08-04 11:36 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>: I agree on the need for process and believe that looking to established rules is useful. This should be our first decision. I also wanted to clarify one point as to my recollection of the consensus in London; it was solely for 3 co-chairs to be selected by a volunteer process. Those were the only questions that were hummed. Anything else is a new proposal which gets us back to a need for process.
Best-
Joe
On 8/4/2014 3:38 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear colleagues,
thank you for your openly offered remarks, Jean-Jacques which I take very seriously.
It seems to me that your observations - besides the question of membership and chair structure - make here the general point of how CIG members in future can trust each other. This question - as usual in diverse groups - is strongly related to the commonly understood and agreed process in finding decisions.
Our group is still lacking such an agreement. In London we just agreed to follow the "rough consensus principle" but we understand and use different means for it: humming, polls, no objections raised on the email list etc. If we don't find a better way it will lead us deadlocked in almost every question to be decided.
Therefore I am convinced that we have to go through this part to clearly define our decision making process. As a starter I attach an extract of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. I'm sure others may have similar approaches with additional ideas. It is worthwile to put this together and come up with a suggestion to be finalized at the Istanbul meeting. I'd be happy to be part of a small prep team.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 7:35 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London.
Dear Colleagues,
two weeks after our first Coordination Group (CG) meeting in London, I would like to offer a few remarks.
FIRST, THERE IS A TENDENCY WITHIN OUR CG TO DISREGARD THE WIDER PICTURE.
For most global Internet users, the NTIA statement about transitioning stewardship of the IANA functions, while undoubtedly implying that technical changes would be required, was primarily a political message about the United States' willingness to hand over that stewardship. And for the global user community, it is natural and acceptable that Washington, as the current custodian, requires certain conditions to be met before transition can be carried out. The fact that the timing of the NTIA statement may have something to do with the Snowden revelations does not diminish the value of the US proposal.
To someone who follows US and world affairs quite closely, some attitudes displayed in the CG show little awareness of the fact that the intentions of the United States could be completely misunderstood. They also show little consideration for the user communities in non-affluent societies.
When it became clear that the membership of our Coordination Group was heavily weighted in favour of a single geographic region (North America), one citizenship (11 US citizens out of 30 members), as well as business interests and technical operators, this was played down by several members of the CG as representing a "purely political" dimension and therefore not relevant to the matter in hand which, for them, should remain "purely technical".
To illustrate my point: in London I was given the opportunity ( thank you Alissa ;-) ) to share a few thoughts about the geo-strategic challenges facing the Internet, and their possible implications for the task of the CG. In reaction, there was not a single question or remark: this was not the silence of approval, but a lack of interest in the topic. Rest reassured, I have no personal hangup about this; but I am concerned that the CG seems to be ignoring an important dimension.
SECOND, SUCH A LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IS NOT WITHOUT RISK.
In London, through an agreed process, we reached a documented decision in favour of 3 Co-Chairs. After London, some of you considered that you did not like this result, and took the initiative to set up a poll. I mention this topic of Chair structure because it encapsulates several of the problems facing us now.
The composition of our CG is what it is, we're not going to change it now. But we owe it to the global community to show more sensitivity to some wider issues. Are we impervious to the writing on the wall? Quite a few in the global user community consider that the presence of US citizens, already so strong in the CG, would not be justified in the Chair structure and would in fact open our work to easy criticism, whatever the quality of that work. It has also been noted that the presence of business interests (already strongly represented in the CG) would be unjustified and unfair in the chair structure. Let me be clear: this is not about the merits or capacity of any individual, it is about over-representation and conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
Members of the CG should be aware that they are under close scrutiny by the global community, and that the acceptability and credibility of their final plan for transition will also hinge on the perceived process by which this was developed.
It is therefore important to demonstrate to the outside world that we operate in an orderly, efficient and fair fashion, and that we follow agreed processes and abide by our documented decisions. Deciding upon our own leadership structure is an important first test. We need a leadership structure that is the outcome of agreed process and which demonstrates the CG's commitment to its duty to act in the interests of the global stakeholder community.
THIRD, THE WAY FORWARD IS NOT NECESSARILY CONTENTIOUS.
Like all of us on this list, I'm not interested in confining myself to analysis or criticism. Here are my proposals moving forward:
- Membership of the CG: let's just accept it as is.
- Chair structure: for all the reasons already put forward by the ALAC, having 3 Co-Chairs from 3 different geographic regions will garner the widest support from the global community. This can be achieved in a simple and straightforward way by the Interim Chair declaring that the poll (the results of which are in any case open to widely differing interpretations) will be put to one side, that the CG will continue as agreed in London, and by calling for candidates for the 3 Co-Chairs. The timeline should be very short.
- Global public interest: in the future, we need to consciously take into account the way in which our processes and choices may impact not only the operators and clients of the IANA functions, but more generally the global Internet community. This is the only way to ensure that the transition is a durable success.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
_______________________________________________ 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
In an aircraft, there is a pilot and a co-pilot. Maybe this precedent offers us a way forward. We can have a chair and two co-chairs. Russ On Aug 3, 2014, at 1:35 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
two weeks after our first Coordination Group (CG) meeting in London, I would like to offer a few remarks.
FIRST, THERE IS A TENDENCY WITHIN OUR CG TO DISREGARD THE WIDER PICTURE.
For most global Internet users, the NTIA statement about transitioning stewardship of the IANA functions, while undoubtedly implying that technical changes would be required, was primarily a political message about the United States' willingness to hand over that stewardship. And for the global user community, it is natural and acceptable that Washington, as the current custodian, requires certain conditions to be met before transition can be carried out. The fact that the timing of the NTIA statement may have something to do with the Snowden revelations does not diminish the value of the US proposal.
To someone who follows US and world affairs quite closely, some attitudes displayed in the CG show little awareness of the fact that the intentions of the United States could be completely misunderstood. They also show little consideration for the user communities in non-affluent societies.
When it became clear that the membership of our Coordination Group was heavily weighted in favour of a single geographic region (North America), one citizenship (11 US citizens out of 30 members), as well as business interests and technical operators, this was played down by several members of the CG as representing a "purely political" dimension and therefore not relevant to the matter in hand which, for them, should remain "purely technical".
To illustrate my point: in London I was given the opportunity ( thank you Alissa ;-) ) to share a few thoughts about the geo-strategic challenges facing the Internet, and their possible implications for the task of the CG. In reaction, there was not a single question or remark: this was not the silence of approval, but a lack of interest in the topic. Rest reassured, I have no personal hangup about this; but I am concerned that the CG seems to be ignoring an important dimension.
SECOND, SUCH A LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IS NOT WITHOUT RISK.
In London, through an agreed process, we reached a documented decision in favour of 3 Co-Chairs. After London, some of you considered that you did not like this result, and took the initiative to set up a poll. I mention this topic of Chair structure because it encapsulates several of the problems facing us now.
The composition of our CG is what it is, we're not going to change it now. But we owe it to the global community to show more sensitivity to some wider issues. Are we impervious to the writing on the wall? Quite a few in the global user community consider that the presence of US citizens, already so strong in the CG, would not be justified in the Chair structure and would in fact open our work to easy criticism, whatever the quality of that work. It has also been noted that the presence of business interests (already strongly represented in the CG) would be unjustified and unfair in the chair structure. Let me be clear: this is not about the merits or capacity of any individual, it is about over-representation and conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
Members of the CG should be aware that they are under close scrutiny by the global community, and that the acceptability and credibility of their final plan for transition will also hinge on the perceived process by which this was developed.
It is therefore important to demonstrate to the outside world that we operate in an orderly, efficient and fair fashion, and that we follow agreed processes and abide by our documented decisions. Deciding upon our own leadership structure is an important first test. We need a leadership structure that is the outcome of agreed process and which demonstrates the CG's commitment to its duty to act in the interests of the global stakeholder community.
THIRD, THE WAY FORWARD IS NOT NECESSARILY CONTENTIOUS.
Like all of us on this list, I'm not interested in confining myself to analysis or criticism. Here are my proposals moving forward:
- Membership of the CG: let's just accept it as is.
- Chair structure: for all the reasons already put forward by the ALAC, having 3 Co-Chairs from 3 different geographic regions will garner the widest support from the global community. This can be achieved in a simple and straightforward way by the Interim Chair declaring that the poll (the results of which are in any case open to widely differing interpretations) will be put to one side, that the CG will continue as agreed in London, and by calling for candidates for the 3 Co-Chairs. The timeline should be very short.
- Global public interest: in the future, we need to consciously take into account the way in which our processes and choices may impact not only the operators and clients of the IANA functions, but more generally the global Internet community. This is the only way to ensure that the transition is a durable success.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On 4.08.14 17:19 , Russ Housley wrote:
In an aircraft, there is a pilot and a co-pilot.
... and while they take turns flying the aircraft and while the pilot monitoring is expected to clearly call out any mistakes by the pilot flying, the captain has the ultimate responsibility for the safe operation of the aeroplane. That is why the technical term is "pilot in command" and why the pilot in command is empowered appropriately by laws, regulations and traditions. Maybe this precedent offers us a way forward. We can have a chair and two co-chairs. This is exactly where I perceived the discussion to be going before the latest intervention by ALAC. I like this compromise because - it provides stability by not depending on a single person, - it has potential to bring complementary skills to bear, - it provides the external optics ALAC considers important, and - it allows sharing of the workload. At the same time it clearly assigns the responsibility for organising and conducting (sic!) our work to a single person who accepts that responsibility and whom we empower by agreeing to give them room to do their work and not loose ourselves in battles about formalities or in frequent criticism of the chair. I strongly believe in giving people responsibility and in empowering them appropriately at the same time. NB: I also believe in taking away their responsibilities if they do not do the job.
From experience I am very wary of giving any responsibility to a group of equals, especially if they have no history of working well together. I have especially bad experiences with equal co-chairs of any large group. There must be a reason why this is an extremely rare arrangement.
Way forward: Best would be if we could agree on 1+2 in the next few days by e-mail or poll. This would require ALAC removing their show-stopper. Maybe hearing many ICG members agree with this compromise would make it easier for ALAC? Then we call for candidates. The we take a poll. The we appoint two people. Next best would be to discuss this at our September f2f meeting. In that case we will need to agree who prepares and chairs this meeting until the issue is resolved. We should not attempt to resolve this in a telephone conference. This is unlikely to work. We better use that time to progress other work like the RFP. Constructively yours Daniel
-----Original Message----- Maybe this precedent offers us a way forward. We can have a chair and two co-chairs.
I agree, and I was a supporter of 3 co-chairs. I found Alissa's compromise acceptable because, while 3 co-chairs had the most support, it also had the most people who "couldn't live with it." This way, we get 3 chairs but a clearer status differentiation between them, satisfying both camps.
This is exactly where I perceived the discussion to be going before the latest intervention by ALAC.
I have to agree that the last intervention by _one_ of the ALAC representatives (which is not the same thing as an "ALAC" intervention) did not help to move us forward. As someone who has been analyzing and writing peer-reviewed scholarly publications on the "wider picture" and the "geopolitical challenges" of US unilateral control since 2001, I do not think it advances the work of the ICG to focus on those kinds of issues, unless one can show how it is related, clearly and directly, to specific decisions the ICG needs to make; i.e., to the activities in the charter. I think we flirt with divisiveness when we imply that people who happen to be of a certain citizenship are agents or supporters of their government's position, particularly when people from civil society or the technical community are involved. FYI, I have been criticizing US unilateral control and organizing opposition to it before some of us here knew what ICANN was. During the previous administration this did not make me friends in Washington, and that had its costs. So I don't appreciate being subjected to charges that I am not sensitive to those issues. If there is an imbalance in the ICG composition, it is Western vs. non-Western. In other words, a European co-chair would maintain the imbalance just as much as an American one. But, as I said in London, competence and confidence among the ICG is the top priority to me. Citizenship diversity is desirable but cannot be the sole, overriding criterion, and there are other relevant forms of diversity (e.g., cultural/linguistic, gender, stakeholder group). It's time to move forward on the chair issue. It is not a high-stakes political decision but primarily a practical one. How we solicit and handle proposals, especially when the level of consensus is unclear, will prove to be far more consequential than this stuff. We are diverting our attention from more important things. Milton L Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org
Firstly, we certainly need to establish clear decision making protocols both face-face and online. I personally did not think we have a clear enough protocol in London, and this case only proves it. Second, while I did hum for 3 co chairs in London, my understanding at that time was that we were only considering the number (3 vs 2), and that the structure was to be subsequently decided, whether during the meeting or later. We did not make that subsequent decision in London, and I personally did not have a position on it at the time. But I believe we now have a decision, and I support the outcome of 1 Chair plus 2 Vice-Chairs; so I also ask that we move on, on that basis. Paul. On 5 Aug 2014, at 4:06 am, Milton L Mueller <Mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- Maybe this precedent offers us a way forward. We can have a chair and two co-chairs.
I agree, and I was a supporter of 3 co-chairs. I found Alissa's compromise acceptable because, while 3 co-chairs had the most support, it also had the most people who "couldn't live with it." This way, we get 3 chairs but a clearer status differentiation between them, satisfying both camps.
This is exactly where I perceived the discussion to be going before the latest intervention by ALAC.
I have to agree that the last intervention by _one_ of the ALAC representatives (which is not the same thing as an "ALAC" intervention) did not help to move us forward.
As someone who has been analyzing and writing peer-reviewed scholarly publications on the "wider picture" and the "geopolitical challenges" of US unilateral control since 2001, I do not think it advances the work of the ICG to focus on those kinds of issues, unless one can show how it is related, clearly and directly, to specific decisions the ICG needs to make; i.e., to the activities in the charter.
I think we flirt with divisiveness when we imply that people who happen to be of a certain citizenship are agents or supporters of their government's position, particularly when people from civil society or the technical community are involved. FYI, I have been criticizing US unilateral control and organizing opposition to it before some of us here knew what ICANN was. During the previous administration this did not make me friends in Washington, and that had its costs. So I don't appreciate being subjected to charges that I am not sensitive to those issues.
If there is an imbalance in the ICG composition, it is Western vs. non-Western. In other words, a European co-chair would maintain the imbalance just as much as an American one. But, as I said in London, competence and confidence among the ICG is the top priority to me. Citizenship diversity is desirable but cannot be the sole, overriding criterion, and there are other relevant forms of diversity (e.g., cultural/linguistic, gender, stakeholder group).
It's time to move forward on the chair issue. It is not a high-stakes political decision but primarily a practical one. How we solicit and handle proposals, especially when the level of consensus is unclear, will prove to be far more consequential than this stuff. We are diverting our attention from more important things.
Milton L Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (8)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Milton L Mueller -
Paul Wilson -
Russ Housley -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques -
WUKnoben