[Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process

Subrenat, Jean-Jacques jjs at dyalog.net
Wed Jan 7 10:41:26 UTC 2015

Thank you Alissa for your thoughts on the process.

Following on Daniel's initiative, and for the sake of transparency, here is how I have been interacting with ALAC which designated me to be a member of the ICG:

Immediately after my designation, I suggested that ALAC set up an Ad-hoc Working Group (WG), in order to follow developments in the ICG, and prepare contributions for the "proposal" stage. On average, this WG has held conference calls once a week, during which typically Mohamed and I were invited to give an update on ICG work. In late 2014, ALAC elected a new chair (Alan Greenberg), who agreed that Olivier Crépin-Leblond (his predecessor as ALAC Chair) would continue to chair this WG.

Conversely, my participation in the formulation of ALAC positions on Transition has been voluntarily limited to ensuring that data being used was accurate, that there was sufficient awareness regarding timeline and process, and to avoid straying from agreed objectives. In doing this, I avoided promoting any particular point of view on policy choices, because it was/is my belief that, as a representative of ALAC and more generally of the Internet user community, my duty is to convey their expectations or concerns to the ICG, rather than to advocate a particular outcome.

Regarding Alissa's suggestion that the assessment of each contribution by "affected parties" should include "insiders" as well as "outsiders", I volunteer to help assess Names, Protocol Parameters, and contributions from the Internet user community.

Best regards,

----- Mail original -----
De: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>, "ICG" <internal-cg at icann.org>
Envoyé: Mercredi 7 Janvier 2015 09:31:11
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process

On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi all,
> At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion
> about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community
> proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact
> that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in
> the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we
> are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG
> assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even
> though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved
> in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind
> we have many safeguards in place to help us out here:
> (1) Multitude of proposal reviews
> As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we
> will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment
> criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each
> community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question
> and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that
> community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere
> solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve
> this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think
> this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal.
> (2) Charter limitations
> Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the
> proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to
> alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is
> quite limited.
> (3) Transparent proposal development processes
> In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in
> them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of
> us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder
> to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think
> it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment
> process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
> (4) Operating by ICG consensus
> As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I
> think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member
> trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal
> objectives.
>  From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to
> ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of
> the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As
> the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’
> confidence in us to have this articulated.
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> *
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

This makes sense to me.

I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to 
this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of 
proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of 
hidden interests or actions.

For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals 
of the names and protocol parameters communities.

As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public 
discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my 
job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the 
development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR 
communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.

Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list