<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Would one way to address the breadth issue while considering the
needs of channeling and efficiency be to:<br>
<br>
1. At the outset, request the three proposals from the three
communities.<br>
2. Assure that those communities make public ways for non-members
of the community to comment on their work.<br>
3. From the outset allow comments on all ICG processes for
transparency etc.<br>
4. As we receive each proposal, publish it as a draft for
consideration and accept comments on those proposals as well as
comments on how the proposals may work together.<br>
5. As we coordinate across the proposals to develop the NTIA
submission allow comments across that process.<br>
<br>
This could be considered inclusive without being disruptive or
overwhelming. <br>
<br>
As to accountability, I would perhaps ask people to only comment on
linkages that should be considered between IANA transition and the
larger ICANN accountability question. Issues specifically dealing
only with ICANN accountability should be more appropriately routed
to that committee.<br>
<br>
Joe <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/2/2014 5:49 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACNR4-K7-FCyA5ZL4NyRG_-MWrw3J5BwpREePEdwzadjzDD1eQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<p>
<br>
</p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Dear All,</span></p>
<p>
<br>
</p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Please FIND ATTACHED MY COMMENTS </span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<span lang="EN-US">
<p>Regards</p>
<p>
K.ARASTEH </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"><br>
</span></p>
<p>
<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</span>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2014-08-02 23:15 GMT+02:00 Kavouss
Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<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>
<div>
<div class="h5">
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>
</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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in" target="_blank">alissa@cooperw.in</a>></span>:
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">Hi Richard,<br>
<br>
On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch" target="_blank">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>
<div>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in"
target="_blank">alissa@cooperw.in</a>]<br>
>> Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46<br>
>> To: Tamer Rizk; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch"
target="_blank">rhill@hill-a.ch</a>; Stephen
Farrell<br>
>> Cc: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org"
target="_blank">internal-cg@icann.org</a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org"
target="_blank">ianatransition@icann.org</a>;<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org"
target="_blank">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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:trizk@inficron.com"
target="_blank">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se" target="_blank">paf@frobbit.se</a>]<br>
>> >>> Sent: vendredi, 1. aout
2014 15:57<br>
>> >>> To: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch"
target="_blank">rhill@hill-a.ch</a><br>
>> >>> Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri
Doria; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org"
target="_blank">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch"
target="_blank">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org"
target="_blank">ianatransition@icann.org</a><br>
>> >> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org"
target="_blank">IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org</a><br>
>> ><a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org"
target="_blank">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>