[Internal-cg] Charter commenting
Mohamed El Bashir
mbashir at mbash.net
Thu Aug 7 18:34:34 UTC 2014
The revised text is fine and clear, I think its time we proceed and publish the text by tomorrow, let's give a deadline of 10 days.
We should aim to approve/endorse the final charter in our teleconference call on 19 August, hopefully.
> On 7 Aug 2014, at 20:57, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> Here is some revised landing page text that tries to capture the
> discussion in this thread:
> ICG Charter Open for Public Comments
> On July 18, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)
> produced a draft charter <link> that defines its own tasks. The ICG views
> defining the broad outlines of its charter as important, but it views
> finalizing the charter and moving on to the real work of the transition
> planning to be of equal importance. Thus the ICG is opening up a short
> public comment period on the charter to determine if there are any major
> objections to the current draft that the ICG has not already taken into
> The charter is open for public comment until August XX, 2014 at 20:00 UTC.
> Public comments are considered to be for the public record, and for the
> information and consideration of all participants in this process, not
> just for the ICG. Everyone is encouraged to review any public comments
> that may be submitted via the process below.
> Public comment submission process links:
> Comment submission: <link>
> List of comments submitted via this site: <link>
> Charter: <link>
> Deadline: August XX, 2014 at 20:00 UTC
>> On 8/6/14, 9:16 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" <adiel at afrinic.net> wrote:
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>> - a.
>>>> -----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
>>>> but I may have missed a discussion on this while offline)?
>>>> - a.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg