[ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)

Patrik Fältström paf at frobbit.se
Fri Aug 1 20:47:23 UTC 2014

On 1 aug 2014, at 19:30, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>> 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?

The less the ICG have to do, the better. If the only thing the ICG do is to say "we got one proposal, and it seems people actually do agree on that proposal, and the proposal do have broad consensus in the greater community", that would be the best outcome.

>> 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".

Yes, but the "normal process" is not as multi stakeholder bottom up as I would like things.

I really want people to work out things bottom up. So that whoever is to evaluate the conclusion of the process just evaluates whether it has broad consensus and not what the actual proposal is.

>> 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).

What the ICG is doing is to encourage people to collaborate.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/attachments/20140801/da4a48dd/signature.asc>

More information about the ianatransition mailing list