[Internal-cg] Charter commenting
adiel at afrinic.net
Wed Aug 6 16:16:44 UTC 2014
On Aug 6, 2014, at 19:52 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Adiel and I may agree on the confusing nature of the message, but I think our responses point in opposite directions.
:-) let try to bring them back to the same direction. In fact I’m not requesting that we necessarily have a round of comment period at all. I’m just questioning the process. If we are to have a public comment period why not be the direct input point ourselves (use the interim secretariat to handle that) rather than adding an additional layer using respective community discussion process? How are these feedbacks going to be consolidated and pass on to us in the short window we have? Each community will request time to define process by which they manage their comments and consolidate them … etc … We know it work in our environment.
> My view was that we should be consistent about relying on the community representatives instead of another ICANN-administered comment period - I believe this is appropraite for the charter ONLY. We should not provide an opportunity for dozens of many random emails and a bunch of formal comments wordsmithing the draft via a comment list. We lack the time and resources to process a bunch of written comments and still make progress on the other things. Instead, we should encourage people to review the draft and convey any major concerns they have about the charter to their representatives on the ICG. I think the charter needs to be finalized asap and we need to concentrate on actually doing our job.
> The charter as it now exists has roots in a prior comment period on the composition and scope of the ICG. I think we have the authority to finalize that process ourselves. The process of drafting the charter was highly transparent and the draft has been out there in front of our communities for three weeks now.
I’m globally in agreement with you on the above. But when we release our set of documents after London we mentioned that they are published for comments (and many from the community ask about the process for such comments period). We could have then give a very short windows not more than a week to collect comments and by now finalise the Charter ourselves. Now that we have kind of miss that opportunity we need to find the most optimum way to get it done quickly (without diluting the quality).
> Asking for a comment period on the charter essentially turns the clock back to July 18 and freezes our activity for a month on all other fronts if we are to be really consistent about the fact that we don’t have a charter yet.
> I also think it is confusing to position ourselves in a strange middle ground in which we are asking for formal wrirtten comments on a list but telling people we don’t want to make major changes.
> Either we are opening up the entire draft charter for comment, criticism and redrafting, or we are saying that we basically have a charter and asking whether anyone has major objections to it that we haven't taken into account. I favor the latter approach.
I too will favor that.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adiel Akplogan [mailto:adiel at afrinic.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 10:31 AM
>> To: Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Charter commenting
>> On Aug 6, 2014, at 16:37 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>> I am not sure I understand this:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> It is the strong preference
>>>> of the ICG that comments about the charter from the public be
>>>> submitted via existing IANA-related community processes, and not
>>>> through the link provided below.
>>> If we don't want people to provide comments through that link, why
>> provide the link? I suspect many people will be confused by this.
>> In fact I'm wondering why do we want to make this particular comment
>> related to the ICG organisation diffuse through the community process (sorry
>> but I may have missed a discussion on this while offline)?
>> - a.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 313 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Internal-cg