[Internal-cg] IETF assessment

Tue Feb 3 22:04:20 UTC 2015

Alissa,
I agree with that interpretation AND NOT WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS
PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED BY YOU
Regards
Kavouss

2015-02-03 21:15 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> Hi Kavouss,
>
> My interpretation of what Milton was saying is that different groups of
> ICG members would send questions back to the operational communities and
> request formal responses as part of the Step I assessment process, possibly
> at different times. What I was saying is that I think it would be better
> for the ICG to gather all of its questions for the operational communities
> and send them together at one time with one request for a formal response.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Alissa,
> Thank you very much for comprehensive  reply
> What you are describing that
> A) Any querry or Comments, or concerns should not be sent to the
> operational community because
> Quote
> Example
> "if the *IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to
> questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an
> example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input,
> reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the
> communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple
> different times to address questions received by different factions of the
> ICG"*
> Unquote.
> B) Quote
> " * I ( Alissa) think it is our responsibility to figure out if we
> collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response
> to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in
> such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered"*
> Unquote
> I conclude from the arguments you presented
> Concerns / comments received from a member of community SHALL BE IGNORED.
> THIS IS IN FULL CONTRADICTION WITH A BOTTON-UP INCLUSSIVE PROCESS THAT
> ICANN CLAIMS IN PLACE
> Sorry , there isd some difficulties in tzhe approach that you proposed
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-02-03 3:42 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>
>> Hi Milton,
>>
>> A few thoughts below.
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:41 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From my perspective the
>> >> assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come
>> from
>> >> multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to
>> agree on, but
>> >> it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from
>> that
>> >> community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you
>> want
>> >> to do something else?
>> >
>> > I agree that the assessments are for our internal use, primarily, but
>> of course as they are exchanged on an open list others can see them, which
>> is good. It would be good to have an accepted assessment for the ICG as a
>> whole. In the IETF case I deliberately went into some detail describing the
>> process issues because I wanted to set the bar a bit higher than others had
>> done regarding how we assess the proposals. That does not mean there is a
>> huge problem with the IETF proposal, only that we need to be very
>> clear-eyed about what happened and how it happened. This is better than
>> just  rubber stamping things. To answer your question directly, any
>> decision to ask a community for something should be based on an agreed,
>> mutual assessment by the ICG. However, I would think that sending questions
>> to an operational community would not require full consensus - if a
>> significant group within ICG wants a question answered, I think we should
>> let them ask it even if we don't share the same c
>> > oncern.
>>
>> I would be concerned if we went down this path because the community
>> consensus processes can require significant effort and resources. For
>> example, if the IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to
>> questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an
>> example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input,
>> reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the
>> communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple
>> different times to address questions received by different factions of the
>> ICG. I think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have
>> questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community.
>> Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response
>> that a bunch of us want to see answered.
>>
>> Furthermore, I think it is that response that we need to agree on within
>> the ICG — not necessarily a single assessment sheet per community. Having
>> one or more assessment sheets is very helpful, but I think if we’re going
>> to work towards some output from this step of the process, our time is
>> better spent figuring out if we have any questions for the community and
>> what those are, rather than perfecting an assessment sheet.
>>
>> >> Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive
>> processes
>> >
>> > I think the IETF process was very open but struggled with
>> inclusiveness. There is a distinction between the two.
>> >
>> > To illustrate the distinction, imagine a process that is open in
>> principle but a large and vocal faction of old-timers tells newcomers that
>> their opinions don't count. One could question the inclusiveness, not the
>> openness. Or imagine an organization or process dominated by men that says,
>> "we are open to participation by women" and does indeed let them in, but
>> then uses various mechanisms to marginalize and exclude the woman who were
>> brave enough to participate. Again one could question the inclusiveness,
>> not the openness. I am making a conceptual point here, not a concrete
>> accusation. ;-)
>>
>> I just want to note here that the ideals of open participation and
>> complete inclusivity can be in tension. Under circumstances where anyone is
>> allowed to participate in any manner they wish, it’s quite difficult to
>> prevent Participant A from telling Participant B that his opinion doesn’t
>> count — or foreclosing Participant A’s contributions of any sort -- because
>> that involves limiting how Participant A engages in the process.
>>
>> In any case, in the context of the IETF proposal, I saw discussion on the
>> basis of ideas, not on the basis of who was offering those ideas. There
>> were pronounced agreements and disagreements among long-time participants,
>> between newcomers and long-time participants, and among newcomers. Some
>> ideas ended up in the rough. All pretty standard stuff in my experience.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Internal-cg mailing list
>> > Internal-cg at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150203/b57b4744/attachment-0001.html>