[ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
rhill at hill-a.ch
Fri Aug 1 17:30:20 UTC 2014
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 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).
More information about the ianatransition