[ccwg-internet-governance] [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)

Tamer Rizk trizk at inficron.com
Sat Aug 2 02:52:44 UTC 2014

How does the diversity of global interests, such as those who sponsored 
highly publicized venues for discussion over the past few months, feel 
about the proposed scope of the process going forward? Is there some 
concrete data that supports consensus? When strong community interest in 
the subject matter is reflected by an outpouring of submissions in 
response to events such as NetMundial and the WSIS, one is led to expect 
similar feedback to what would be perceived as the authoritative venue 
for proposal development.  However, despite assurances of 
well-established mechanisms for discussion and consensus building, there 
is little indication of global engagement.

Perhaps in stating that "if anyone wants to participate they can", you 
are implying that the current process shifts the burden of engagement to 
the wider community. However, a cursory study of any social network will 
tell you that the processes that facilitate vibrant communities succeed 
only by design. The coordinators of online communities understand that 
the burden to spur engagement falls squarely on their own shoulders.

In our case engagement is likely a function of the perceived ability of 
interests to either meaningfully influence the process or clearly 
understand why they could not, relative to the sum of competing 
interests. The current and contrary context is exemplified by the 
following response to a relevant document that was submitted for input:

"You presumably disagree and think you are raising points that have not 
been properly addressed, but my impression fwiw is that you are 
continually re-raising points that have been addressed, in many cases as 
not being in scope of this IANA-related discussion."

So in accordance with the viable path for participation you outlined, 
please highlight the specific data, conversation, or publicized poll 
that reflects consensual resolution of those points, as well as others 
that have been presented over time.

Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of any
> interested party is evident to some but not to others. I’m wondering if a
> clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the ICG
> has proposed for a process going forward is explained below.
> There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing
> components of the transition proposal:
> (1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As
> with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No
> one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding how
> to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced IETF
> participants) are here to help. The process uses well established
> mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to
> successfully craft thousands of documents over the years.
> (2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation
> (which I’m sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will
> also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people need
> help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing
> that help.
> (3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the
> only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I
> haven’t seen any indication that participation will be somehow restricted.
> Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel — but
> certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the ICG
> could run.
> If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate,
> where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop
> focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that
> coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the
> appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and
> consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an arbitrary
> group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process created
> de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support
> and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the
> various IANA functions?
> Alissa
> On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk at inficron.com> wrote:
>> Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to curtail our
>> feedback is that a viable path for our comments to be reflected in the
>> output of this process is not evident. If we desire an outcome that is
>> representative of a diverse set of stakeholder interests, then the ICG
>> should function to publicly aggregate input from those sources, merge
>> them into discrete, topic based proposals for review by the wider
>> community, and offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both
>> external and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group is
>> interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would
>> appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please refer to
>> the previous suggestions herein.
>> Richard Hill wrote:
>>> Please see below.
>>> Thanks and best,
>>> Richard
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf at frobbit.se]
>>>> Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57
>>>> To: rhill at hill-a.ch
>>>> Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; ianatransition at icann.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
>>>> On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>>>> I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the
>>>> summary could well include a satement to the effect that
>>>> proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, in
>>>> consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be a
>>>> consensus proposal.
>>>> Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge their
>>>> respective proposals before sending it to the ICG?
>>> Of course they should.  But what is the role of the ICG if all the
>>> coordination is done outside ICG?
>>>> What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top
>>>> down process with consultations.
>>> Hunh?  What I propose is the usual process.  People make inputs, an
>>> editor
>>> collates them and produces a consolidated draft.  People comment on the
>>> draft.  The editor produces a new draft, etc.
>>> If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common proposal,
>>> why
>>> not.  But if nothing else is acceptable, then I don't call that "bottom
>>> up",
>>> I call that "pre-cooked deal".
>>>> Not good enough for me.
>>>>> The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for comment,
>>>> as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it.
>>>> Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course something
>>>> that will never happen. You know that as well as I do.
>>> There will surely be more objections at the end if people are
>>> discouraged
>>> from sending inputs and if their comments are not reflected in the
>>> output in
>>> some way (which may be an explanation of why the input was not
>>> included).
>>>>      Patrik
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ianatransition mailing list
>>> ianatransition at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
>> _______________________________________________
>> IANAxfer mailing list
>> IANAxfer at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list