[ccwg-internet-governance] [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
alissa at cooperw.in
Sat Aug 2 17:34:58 UTC 2014
On 8/1/14, 7:52 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk at inficron.com> wrote:
>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.
Well, the community processes have just barely begun, so it’s not
surprising that engagement in them is still ramping up. For example, the
IETF mailing list dedicated to this topic was created about a month ago
and a proposed working group charter was circulated for the first time a
couple of weeks ago. So it’s a bit premature to declare that there is or
will be little global engagement.
I would also note that the ICG, which I hope will be proactive in sharing
information globally about how to engage, was formed only a couple of
weeks ago and has not yet embarked on that task while it is bootstrapping
>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.
I can only speak for the IETF, where we have 7000+ RFCs that have been
produced over the span of decades via an input-gathering and
consensus-building process that has engaged participants from most
countries in the world. I’m guessing the RIRs could provide information
about their processes as well.
>Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of
>> interested party is evident to some but not to others. I’m wondering if
>> 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
>> to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced
>> 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
>> 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
>> Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel —
>> certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the
>> 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
>> group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process
>> 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?
>> 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
>>> 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,
>>>>> -----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
>>>>> 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
>>>> collates them and produces a consolidated draft. People comment on
>>>> draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc.
>>>> If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common proposal,
>>>> not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I don't call that
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> ianatransition mailing list
>>>> ianatransition at icann.org
>>> IANAxfer mailing list
>>> IANAxfer at elists.isoc.org
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance