[Internal-cg] Charter commenting
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Sun Aug 3 07:57:44 UTC 2014
I also favor the approach drafted in the recent charter. Nobody prevents
other communities beside the three explicitly requested to put forward a
proposal which is taken into consideration by the ICG (see Liaison b.
"solicit broader input").
In addition paragraphs about e.g. the ICG leadership structure, secretariat
as well as public relations should be included in the charter - once (rough)
consensus is achieved.
I've also asked the GNSO CSG (the group I'm representing on the ICG) for
comments. So far nothing negative but still waiting for comments.
From: Milton L Mueller
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 12:04 AM
To: Patrik Fältström ; Alissa Cooper
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Charter commenting
I tend to agree with Patrik, though I am less worried about "various
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
> on various things, and then pass it to us. That would of course not
> _individuals_ from sending comments to us of course. But, we would
> 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
> where I claim the majority of the feedback comes from various people that
> 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
> up processes, or whether the feedback will come from various individuals
> do have very specific ideas? Individuals that have time to spend, for
> 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
> view that is already sorted out in the bottom up processes we encourage?
> 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
> 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
> must do it this way.
> So to the questions, regarding a forum. Yes, I think we can use something
> that. That uses email interface. We can not use any web forum (that have
> experimented with by ICANN) that requires people to adhere to ICANN
> 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
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg