[Internal-cg] [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (wasComposition of the ICG)
daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
Mon Aug 4 16:41:03 UTC 2014
On 4.08.14 11:53 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear Alissa,
> Dear All
> Many of you and in fact all of you are right with some slight clarification
> First of all ,I agree with richard that the three entities already
> mentioned in the previous draft arae not the only constituencies of INTERNET
> MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH referred to other stakeholders .
> We have to consult them. It is rather very restrictive if we only
> consult those three
> Patrik is also right to be worried about a precooked approach
> I have told many times that the legitimacy of stakeholders commenting on
> the process to be clarified..If someone Under the name of stakeholder
> ,speaks on his or her behalf ,it does not reflect any views of
> stakehioldr but views of individual which should be considered on its
> value and merit
> I still see some defficiencies in identifying those who should be
> consulted , certainly they are not limited to IETF, RIREs and ICANN.
> Please carefully consider the delicate and complex issue before us
> 2014-08-04 11:39 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg
> <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>>:
> Thanks Joseph, Patrik and Adiel for this exchange and the important
> points raised ..
> I believe 2 key success factors here would be:
> 1. Timely and clear communications to clarify the process and guide
> the submissions ..
> 2. Allowing time to go through several consultation iterations with
> the community, along the lines suggested by Joseph, to further
> ensure not only broader consensus of the final consolidated proposal
> but also trust in the followed process ..
> More concretely, I suggest:
> 1. In addition to, requesting the three proposals from the three
> communities (Joseph point 1 below) (through the draft led by Paul),
> 2. that we also post a clear guideline communication for communities
> other than the 3 above to:
> 2.1 encourage them to contribute their views through any of
> the 3 above mentioned communities .. and post all relevant
> information regarding their consultation processes (for example:
> email addresses to submit comments, websites, contact persons, group
> leads, current drafts, ...?)
> 2.2 encourage consolidated, broadly supported proposals
> 2.3 encourage community members to attribute themselves to
> any submitted proposal they fully agree to, rather than submitting a
> new one
> 2.4 clarify, if yet clear to us, ICG approach in
> consolidating and integrating submitted proposals, for instance, in
> case of conflicting views are we going to add both views and start a
> new consultation iteration? Are we going to choose only one? Which
> one? the more broadly supported? those submitted through stakeholder
> groups and/or cross community working groups? individual
> creative/out-of the-box submissions? Of course whatever the approach
> is, we will be making community consultation iterations, along the
> lines suggested by Joseph below ..
> 2.4' Alternatively, as I have just read in a recent message,
> we may agree to suggest that in order not to take on a greater
> decision-making role, that the community comments on proposals from
> the 3 above mentioned communities (if this is what we agree to do) ..
> In summary, I think it is most important that we discuss, make sure
> we agree and have a common understanding (if we are not, how can we
> expect the community to be clear about the process), post this
> suggested process/approach online, seek community feedback, set a
> deadline, and fine tune the process accordingly ..
> Thanks again for this useful discussion ..
> Kind Regards
the charter and the RFP together should speak to all these points and I
believe we have touched on most of them in our discussions in London. So
I suggest that we work on the text of these two documents making sure
that all important points are covered.
More information about the Internal-cg