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

Sat Aug 2 21:49:41 UTC 2014

Dear All,

Please FIND ATTACHED MY COMMENTS

Regards

K.ARASTEH

2014-08-02 23:15 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> Dear All,
>
>  1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is  still a draft, it
> is  not final until it is formally approved by ICG in its formal first f2f
> meeting on 06 September ,due to the fact that
> there has been no ICG-approved  text yet tghus it is subject to further
> comments and modifications.
>
>  2) Thus it appears that the ICG should take decisions regarding the
> process  taking into account community
> comments.
>  ICG  should therefore make proposls regarding the process and
> to submit them for public comment before deciding on any thing .
>
>  3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from
> only
> 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
> > community.
>
> 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.
>
>
> 2014-08-02 19:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>
> 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
>> >comments.
>> >
>> >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
>> >community.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Best,
>> Alissa
>>
>> >
>> >4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is
>> >arbitrary.
>> >
>> >Thanks again and best,
>> >Richard
>> >
>> >> -----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
>> >>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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140802/c8857c74/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Arasteh Comments on the ICG CHARTER.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19402 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140802/c8857c74/ArastehCommentsontheICGCHARTER.docx>