[Internal-cg] [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Sat Aug 2 17:43:33 UTC 2014

Hi Richard,

On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>Dear Alissa,
>Thank you very much for this.  Since you are the chair of the ICG, I
>consider your comments to be very important.

The chair discussion is ongoing, actually. Regardless, please do not
consider my comments to be any more important than those of any member of
the ICG. The chair role (and the interim chair role) is functional and
lends no additional credibility to the person in the role (beyond the
ability to deal with lots of logistics!).

>What I deduce from your message below is that:
>1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is not actually a draft, it
>is final, at least with respect to the process for obtaining proposals
>for the transition.
>Although there has been no ICG-approved method for commenting on the
>draft charter, we know from messages on this list that there have beeen
>proposals to modify the draft charter.
>2) Thus it appears that the ICG (or at least its chair) is making
>decisions regarding the process without taking into account community
>I would have expected the ICG to make proposls regarding the process and
>to submit them for public comment before deciding.

I’m not sure why you deduce the above. My message explicitly described
“[t]he thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a
process going forward.” Importantly, it described “my understanding” of
“what the ICG has proposed."

>3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from
>the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and
>Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own
>individual community requirements/arrangements.
>I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those
>should be the only proposals.
>In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal
>that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters),
>and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily.  I
>recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of
>the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding
>IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.
>Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit
>proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce
>the breadth and scope of the proposals.
>Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because
>not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of
>the 3 communities mentioned above.  Thus they are not familiar with the
>processes used in those communities.
>Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for
>inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.
>Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter,
>NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet
>community.  It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder

I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my
sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from
participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get
it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.


>4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is
>Thanks again and best,
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>> Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46
>> To: Tamer Rizk; rhill at hill-a.ch; Stephen Farrell
>> Cc: internal-cg at icann.org; ianatransition at icann.org;
>> ianaxfer at elists.isoc.org
>> Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition
>> of the ICG)
>> 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?
>> 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
>> >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
>> >> 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
>> >>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 Internal-cg mailing list