[Internal-cg] Charter commenting
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Sat Aug 2 22:04:25 UTC 2014
I tend to agree with Patrik, though I am less worried about "various people."
I think the chartering is just a first step to get the ICG going, and the basic role of the ICG is implicit in the documents and processes underlying its creation. The charter simply makes it all explicit. Our task is to get the thing going and not to spend 20% of our hopefully short lifespan discussing and debating our own charter. Unless we get serious and sustained objections to specific aspects of the draft from a broad spectrum of commentators from existing channels, I think we move ahead and reach consensus on the charter ourselves. I put the charter before my nominating group (the NCSG0 some time ago, and haven't heard any objections and have heard general satisfaction. GNSO people have a LOT of other things to comment upon, including the all-important CCWG that will develop a proposal for names, and imposing another comment period on the community when there is no indication that the draft charter is controversial or that the people on the ICG who drafted it are seriously misaligned with the wishes of their nominating communities strikes me as a waste of time.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
> Sent: Saturday, August 2, 2014 1:21 AM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Charter commenting
> I have concerns about the overall process suggested.
> Originally we where hoping the various constituencies where to reach consensus
> on various things, and then pass it to us. That would of course not prohibit
> _individuals_ from sending comments to us of course. But, we would coordinate
> and draw conclusions on what proposals we find have the most support for.
> If we completely open the door, and even encourage, complete participation
> from anyone in the community, we will get a process like the 1Net mailing list,
> where I claim the majority of the feedback comes from various people that are
> to be honest quite non-constructive, repetitive and...well...not helpful.
> We should encourage bottom up processes, and not turn it into a top down
> process with consultation (where we are on the top).
> Maybe I am overly sensitive, and that for our _charter_ we should run the
> process this way.
> I am though asking myself whether the feedback will actually come from bottom
> up processes, or whether the feedback will come from various individuals that
> do have very specific ideas? Individuals that have time to spend, for various
> reasons. We will most certainly for example both get the (rough) consensus
> from such processes _and_ the proposals from whoever ended up being in the
> non-consensus part of the same process.
> How do we handle and even identify such situations? Should we listen to that
> view that is already sorted out in the bottom up processes we encourage? Who
> are we to decide? Once again, we should coordinate, not evaluate.
> Anyway, balancing the encouragement of time consuming bottom up processes
> against simple "open the door for everyone" is difficult, as as I write above we
> absolutely must allow anyone to send in comments.
> I just do not know how to manage the feedback. Specifically before we have a
> secretariat that can help us with compiling the feedback, sorting and
> understanding where the feedback is coming from.
> That said, for the charter, that decides how we should operate, we probably
> must do it this way.
> So to the questions, regarding a forum. Yes, I think we can use something like
> that. That uses email interface. We can not use any web forum (that have been
> experimented with by ICANN) that requires people to adhere to ICANN principles
> of any kind.
> Comment period, 7 days as you propose, but the announcement and last day
> should be Tue-Thu, based on the fact I do not think the end time should be on a
> weekend or first day of the week anywhere on the planet.
> On 1 aug 2014, at 19:25, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> > I had sent this in the email about updated deadlines, but did not
> > receive any feedback about it:
> > == Charter ==
> > Originally I think we were hoping to have received all charter
> > comments roughly by Aug 1. Mohamed has made a proposal that we setup
> > an explicit mechanism to solicit community feedback on the charter and
> > announce a clear deadline for comments. I have not seen anyone oppose this
> > So my suggestion is that I work with the secretariat to get an email
> > alias (not a mailing list) up and running where community members can
> > send comments if they are not able to convey them via an ICG member
> > (which I still think is the preferred approach in general for charter comments).
> > Comments sent to this alias would be directly reflected on a web page
> > that we can setup. Assuming we can get this working by July 31, I
> > suggest that we announce an Aug 8 deadline for charter comments. This
> > is not a lengthy period of time but I think we had a general sense
> > that it's most important to get the broad outlines of the charter
> > right rather than spending weeks on the details, so hopefully this will be
> > =============
> > Alice has suggested that we could use a forum for this purpose,
> > similar to the ones listed here: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/>. We
> > could publish an announcement page that says that we are accepting
> > public comments on the ICG charter, what the deadline is, a link to
> > the charter, a link to the email alias to be used for comment
> > submission, and a link to the forum page where comments will appear.
> > Should we do this?
> > How long of a comment period should we have? (I would say 7-10 days
> > max, assuming we're interested in major substantive comments and not
> > lots of detailed nits.)
> > Should we give any guidance about what kind of feedback we're looking for?
> > Thanks,
> > Alissa
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
More information about the Internal-cg