[Internal-cg] Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London.

[joseph alhadeff]

I agree on the need for process and believe that looking to established 
rules is useful.  This should be our first decision.  I also wanted to 
clarify one point as to my recollection of the consensus in London; it 
was solely for 3 co-chairs to be selected by a volunteer process.  Those 
were the only questions that were hummed.  Anything else is a new 
proposal which gets us back to a need for process.

Best-

Joe
On 8/4/2014 3:38 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> thank you for your openly offered remarks, Jean-Jacques which I take 
> very seriously.
>
> It seems to me that your observations - besides the question of 
> membership and chair structure - make here the general point of how 
> CIG members in future can trust each other. This question - as usual 
> in diverse groups - is strongly related to the commonly understood and 
> agreed process in finding decisions.
>
> Our group is still lacking such an agreement. In London we just agreed 
> to follow the "rough consensus principle" but we understand and use 
> different means for it: humming, polls, no objections raised on the 
> email list etc. If we don't find a better way it will lead us 
> deadlocked in almost every question to be decided.
>
> Therefore I am convinced that we have to go through this part to 
> clearly define our decision making process. As a starter I attach an 
> extract of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. I'm sure others may have 
> similar approaches with additional ideas. It is worthwile to put this 
> together and come up with a suggestion to be finalized at the Istanbul 
> meeting. I'd be happy to be part of a small prep team.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 7:35 PM
> To: ICG
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London.
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> two weeks after our first Coordination Group (CG) meeting in London, I 
> would like to offer a few remarks.
>
>
> FIRST, THERE IS A TENDENCY WITHIN OUR CG TO DISREGARD THE WIDER PICTURE.
>
> For most global Internet users, the NTIA statement about transitioning 
> stewardship of the IANA functions, while undoubtedly implying that 
> technical changes would be required, was primarily a political message 
> about the United States' willingness to hand over that stewardship. 
> And for the global user community, it is natural and acceptable that 
> Washington, as the current custodian, requires certain conditions to 
> be met before transition can be carried out. The fact that the timing 
> of the NTIA statement may have something to do with the Snowden 
> revelations does not diminish the value of the US proposal.
>
> To someone who follows US and world affairs quite closely, some 
> attitudes displayed in the CG show little awareness of the fact that 
> the intentions of the United States could be completely misunderstood. 
> They also show little consideration for the user communities in 
> non-affluent societies.
>
> When it became clear that the membership of our Coordination Group was 
> heavily weighted in favour of a single geographic region (North 
> America), one citizenship (11 US citizens out of 30 members), as well 
> as business interests and technical operators, this was played down by 
> several members of the CG as representing a "purely political" 
> dimension and therefore not relevant to the matter in hand which, for 
> them, should remain "purely technical".
>
> To illustrate my point: in London I was given the opportunity ( thank 
> you Alissa ;-) ) to share a few thoughts about the geo-strategic 
> challenges facing the Internet, and their possible implications for 
> the task of the CG. In reaction, there was not a single question or 
> remark: this was not the silence of approval, but a lack of interest 
> in the topic. Rest reassured, I have no personal hangup about this; 
> but I am concerned that the CG seems to be ignoring an important 
> dimension.
>
>
> SECOND, SUCH A LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IS NOT 
> WITHOUT RISK.
>
> In London, through an agreed process, we reached a documented decision 
> in favour of 3 Co-Chairs. After London, some of you considered that 
> you did not like this result, and took the initiative to set up a 
> poll. I mention this topic of Chair structure because it encapsulates 
> several of the problems facing us now.
>
> The composition of our CG is what it is, we're not going to change it 
> now. But we owe it to the global community to show more sensitivity to 
> some wider issues. Are we impervious to the writing on the wall? Quite 
> a few in the global user community consider that the presence of US 
> citizens, already so strong in the CG, would not be justified in the 
> Chair structure and would in fact open our work to easy criticism, 
> whatever the quality of that work. It has also been noted that the 
> presence of business interests (already strongly represented in the 
> CG) would be unjustified and unfair in the chair structure. Let me be 
> clear: this is not about the merits or capacity of any individual, it 
> is about over-representation and conflicts of interest, real or 
> perceived.
>
> Members of the CG should be aware that they are under close scrutiny 
> by the global community, and that the acceptability and credibility of 
> their final plan for transition will also hinge on the perceived 
> process by which this was developed.
>
> It is therefore important to demonstrate to the outside world that we 
> operate in an orderly, efficient and fair fashion, and that we follow 
> agreed processes and abide by our documented decisions. Deciding upon 
> our own leadership structure is an important first test. We need a 
> leadership structure that is the outcome of agreed process and which 
> demonstrates the CG's commitment to its duty to act in the interests 
> of the global stakeholder community.
>
>
> THIRD, THE WAY FORWARD IS NOT NECESSARILY CONTENTIOUS.
>
> Like all of us on this list, I'm not interested in confining myself to 
> analysis or criticism. Here are my proposals moving forward:
>
> - Membership of the CG: let's just accept it as is.
>
> - Chair structure: for all the reasons already put forward by the 
> ALAC, having 3 Co-Chairs from 3 different geographic regions will 
> garner the widest support from the global community. This can be 
> achieved in a simple and straightforward way by the Interim Chair 
> declaring that the poll (the results of which are in any case open to 
> widely differing interpretations) will be put to one side, that the CG 
> will continue as agreed in London, and by calling for candidates for 
> the 3 Co-Chairs. The timeline should be very short.
>
> - Global public interest: in the future, we need to consciously take 
> into account the way in which our processes and choices may impact not 
> only the operators and clients of the IANA functions, but more 
> generally the global Internet community. This is the only way to 
> ensure that the transition is a durable success.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140804/80594bca/attachment.html>