[Internal-cg] Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London.
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Mon Aug 4 09:36:29 UTC 2014
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.
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
> -----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
> 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
> 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,
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg