<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div><br> 1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is still a draft, it<br>is not final until it is formally approved by ICG in its formal first f2f meeting on 06 September ,due to the fact that <br>
there has been no ICG-approved text yet tghus it is subject to further comments and modifications.</div><div><br></div><div> 2) Thus it appears that the ICG should take decisions regarding the process taking into account community<br>
comments.<br> ICG should therefore make proposls regarding the process and<br>to submit them for public comment before deciding on any thing .<br><br> 3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from only <br>
the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and<br> Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own<br>> individual community requirements/arrangements.<br>> <br>> I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those<br>
> should be the only proposals.<br>> <br>> In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal<br>> that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters),<br>> and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I<br>
> recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of<br>> the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding<br>> IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.<br>> <br>
> Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit<br>> proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce<br>> the breadth and scope of the proposals.<br>> <br>> Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because<br>
> not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of<br>> the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the<br>> processes used in those communities.<br>> <br>> Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for<br>
> inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.<br>> <br>> Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter,<br>> NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet<br>
> community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder<br>> community.<br><br> I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my<br> sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from<br>
participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get<br> it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-08-02 19:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in" target="_blank">alissa@cooperw.in</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Richard,<br>
<br>
On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <<a href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch">rhill@hill-a.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Dear Alissa,<br>
><br>
>Thank you very much for this. Since you are the chair of the ICG, I<br>
>consider your comments to be very important.<br>
<br>
The chair discussion is ongoing, actually. Regardless, please do not<br>
consider my comments to be any more important than those of any member of<br>
the ICG. The chair role (and the interim chair role) is functional and<br>
lends no additional credibility to the person in the role (beyond the<br>
ability to deal with lots of logistics!).<br>
<br>
><br>
>What I deduce from your message below is that:<br>
><br>
>1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is not actually a draft, it<br>
>is final, at least with respect to the process for obtaining proposals<br>
>for the transition.<br>
><br>
>Although there has been no ICG-approved method for commenting on the<br>
>draft charter, we know from messages on this list that there have beeen<br>
>proposals to modify the draft charter.<br>
><br>
>2) Thus it appears that the ICG (or at least its chair) is making<br>
>decisions regarding the process without taking into account community<br>
>comments.<br>
><br>
>I would have expected the ICG to make proposls regarding the process and<br>
>to submit them for public comment before deciding.<br>
<br>
I’m not sure why you deduce the above. My message explicitly described<br>
“[t]he thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a<br>
process going forward.” Importantly, it described “my understanding” of<br>
“what the ICG has proposed."<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
>3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from<br>
>the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and<br>
>Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own<br>
>individual community requirements/arrangements.<br>
><br>
>I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those<br>
>should be the only proposals.<br>
><br>
>In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal<br>
>that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters),<br>
>and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I<br>
>recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of<br>
>the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding<br>
>IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability.<br>
><br>
>Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit<br>
>proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce<br>
>the breadth and scope of the proposals.<br>
><br>
>Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because<br>
>not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of<br>
>the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the<br>
>processes used in those communities.<br>
><br>
>Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for<br>
>inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion.<br>
><br>
>Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter,<br>
>NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet<br>
>community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder<br>
>community.<br>
<br>
I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my<br>
sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from<br>
participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get<br>
it. The IETF certainly does not have membership.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Alissa<br>
<br>
><br>
>4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is<br>
>arbitrary.<br>
><br>
>Thanks again and best,<br>
>Richard<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>]<br>
>> Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46<br>
>> To: Tamer Rizk; <a href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch">rhill@hill-a.ch</a>; Stephen Farrell<br>
>> Cc: <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org">ianatransition@icann.org</a>;<br>
>> <a href="mailto:ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org">ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition<br>
>> of the ICG)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of<br>
>>any<br>
>> interested party is evident to some but not to others. I’m wondering if<br>
>>a<br>
>> clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the ICG<br>
>> has proposed for a process going forward is explained below.<br>
>><br>
>> There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing<br>
>> components of the transition proposal:<br>
>><br>
>> (1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As<br>
>> with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No<br>
>> one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding<br>
>>how<br>
>> to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced<br>
>>IETF<br>
>> participants) are here to help. The process uses well established<br>
>> mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to<br>
>> successfully craft thousands of documents over the years.<br>
>><br>
>> (2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation<br>
>> (which I’m sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will<br>
>> also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people<br>
>>need<br>
>> help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing<br>
>> that help.<br>
>><br>
>> (3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the<br>
>> only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I<br>
>> haven’t seen any indication that participation will be somehow<br>
>>restricted.<br>
>> Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel —<br>
>>but<br>
>> certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the<br>
>>ICG<br>
>> could run.<br>
>><br>
>> If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate,<br>
>> where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop<br>
>> focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that<br>
>> coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the<br>
>> appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and<br>
>> consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an<br>
>>arbitrary<br>
>> group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process<br>
>>created<br>
>> de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support<br>
>> and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the<br>
>> various IANA functions?<br>
>><br>
>> Alissa<br>
>><br>
>> On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <<a href="mailto:trizk@inficron.com">trizk@inficron.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> ><br>
>> >Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to curtail our<br>
>> >feedback is that a viable path for our comments to be reflected in the<br>
>> >output of this process is not evident. If we desire an outcome that is<br>
>> >representative of a diverse set of stakeholder interests, then the ICG<br>
>> >should function to publicly aggregate input from those sources, merge<br>
>> >them into discrete, topic based proposals for review by the wider<br>
>> >community, and offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both<br>
>> >external and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group<br>
>>is<br>
>> >interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would<br>
>> >appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please refer to<br>
>> >the previous suggestions herein.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >Richard Hill wrote:<br>
>> >> Please see below.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Thanks and best,<br>
>> >> Richard<br>
>> >><br>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> >>> From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:<a href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se">paf@frobbit.se</a>]<br>
>> >>> Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57<br>
>> >>> To: <a href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch">rhill@hill-a.ch</a><br>
>> >>> Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; <a href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org">ianatransition@icann.org</a><br>
>> >>> Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition<br>
>> of the ICG)<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <<a href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch">rhill@hill-a.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>>> I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the<br>
>> >>> summary could well include a satement to the effect that<br>
>> >>> proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, in<br>
>> >>> consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be a<br>
>> >>> consensus proposal.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge their<br>
>> >>> respective proposals before sending it to the ICG?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Of course they should. But what is the role of the ICG if all the<br>
>> >> coordination is done outside ICG?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top<br>
>> >>> down process with consultations.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Hunh? What I propose is the usual process. People make inputs, an<br>
>> >>editor<br>
>> >> collates them and produces a consolidated draft. People comment on<br>
>>the<br>
>> >> draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common proposal,<br>
>> >>why<br>
>> >> not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I don't call that<br>
>>"bottom<br>
>> >>up",<br>
>> >> I call that "pre-cooked deal".<br>
>> >><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Not good enough for me.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>>> The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for comment,<br>
>> >>> as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course something<br>
>> >>> that will never happen. You know that as well as I do.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> There will surely be more objections at the end if people are<br>
>> >>discouraged<br>
>> >> from sending inputs and if their comments are not reflected in the<br>
>> >>output in<br>
>> >> some way (which may be an explanation of why the input was not<br>
>> >>included).<br>
>> >><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Patrik<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> ianatransition mailing list<br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org">ianatransition@icann.org</a><br>
>> >> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> >_______________________________________________<br>
>> >IANAxfer mailing list<br>
>> ><a href="mailto:IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org">IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org</a><br>
>> ><a href="https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer" target="_blank">https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>