[Internal-cg] Strawman proposal finalization process
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Wed Oct 8 19:27:15 UTC 2014
My only concern with the document is that it does not mention coordination with the ICANN accountability process. That, too, is in the charter. I would add a step c) to #2 which says we will prepare a report for the ICANN enhanced accountability process and liaise with it afterwards.
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2014 8:35 PM
To: Kavouss Arasteh
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Manal Ismail; ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Strawman proposal finalization process
I have posted an updated version of the proposal finalization process, attached and in Dropbox, that accommodates comments from Manal and Milton.
I pulled the discussion questions and answers out of the document (and this short thread) and put them below, with some responses from me.
Let's continue discussion on the list and at the f2f meeting.
== Question A ==
Is the list in step 1 complete? What else belongs here?
== Question B ==
How should we handle step 1 procedurally? Should we delegate step 1 to one ICG member or a small group for each proposal, to conduct the analysis and report back to the group to review (as we've done with documents, secretariat, etc.)?
Manal: I believe all ICG members should be equally involved in all proposals. It is important to have a holistic view. It also avoids any gaps in the overall outcome. Yet it is good to have a lead who holds the pen, ensures continuous progress, compile all comments and remarks made by ICG members and make sure they are accurately reflected (or resolved if conflicting/contradicting). So basically I'm in favour of one team and a different lead for each proposal.
Alissa: I like the approach suggested by Manal.
== Question C ==
Is the list in step 2 complete? What else belongs here?
== Question D ==
Should we do this analysis pair-wise, as soon as we have two proposals that have passed step 1? Or should we wait until we have proposals for numbers, names, and protocol parameters that have passed step 1 before starting the analysis in step 2?
Manal: I think if 2 are ready we should proceed with analyzing them, and as soon as we have the third ready we should repeat the analysis (hopefully quicker) in light of the three proposals and not depend on the results of the analysis of the first 2. Things may look different when we see the holistic view.
Alissa: I agree with Manal. My only question is if it starts to look like one component is lagging far behind the others -- should we put the combination of the first two out for public comment (step 3) before receiving the third?
== Question E ==
How should we handle step 2 procedurally? Should we delegate step 2 to one ICG member or a small group to conduct the analysis and report back to the group to review (as we've done with documents, secretariat, etc.)?
Manal: I'm again in favor of one team and separate leads for the reasons stated above.
Alissa: I agree with Manal.
== Question F==
Do we need to add any more detail in step 3, or is the existing description sufficient?
Manal: Nothing to add but I have a couple of questions. Should we have some place holder to step 4 of our timeline, which is 'Testing'? Should we link the steps above to the dates we have in the timeline?
Alissa: I'm not sure there is anything we need to do vis a vis testing. The communities need to do their own testing.
Alissa: I added dates from the timeline. Not sure if I aligned them properly, though.
Milton: I found it unclear whether we go through another public comment if the proposals are modified. Probably we should. If we are forced to go through the rather important step of returning a proposal to an OC and modifying some part of it, we may want to give the public another crack at expressing their support for the new totality. NTIA may want us to do that also. On the other hand we want to avoid creating opportunities for political mobilizations that seek to levels of support rather than confirming or denying them. I would listen to differing views on this.
Alissa: Good point, we should discuss.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg