[Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process
manal at tra.gov.eg
Sat Jan 10 22:30:49 UTC 2015
I know nothing about the Numbers work ..
Despite joining the mailing list, I was not able to follow the Protocols work ..
I follow closely the Names work and Accountability discussions and contribute views through GAC discussions and other GAC representatives ..
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 5:40 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process
I am volunteer to take care of accountabilty part of the transition function .
I would be happy to work with whoever is voluteering on that matter
2015-01-10 16:38 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
2015-01-09 16:05 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
I will respond with the following disclosures:
I am on the ARIN Advisory Council and thus play a role in the numbers world, but other than urging the NRO to work through a global committee rather than regional ones, I have not followed or participated in the numbers (CRISP) work either at the regional or global level.
I hold Executive Committee position within the GNSO Noncommercial Stakeholders Group and am an active participant in the names CWG.
I followed the IANAPlan IETF fairly actively but on the whole was a marginal(ized) participant.
Using Patrik's useful template, I am:
- Outsider for the numbers work
- Insider for the names work
- Follower of and commentator on the protocols work
> -----Original Message-----
> - Passive follower of the protocol work
> - Outsider for the numbers work
> - Insider regarding the names work
> On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> > 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
> >> 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
> > 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.
> > Daniel
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg