<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>Good start</div><div>Let us working on that as soon as possible</div><div>Please could someone create a naming and version and then moving ahead</div><div>Perhaps we could also discuss that at our third f2f meeting</div><div>I will comeback to you soon.</div><div>One important element to be added to Manal,s updated version is partial or total overlap</div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-09-23 20:54 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear A</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-09-23 16:23 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">Alissa<br>
This is a great start. It does adhere closely to the charter and raises good questions about decisions we have to make.<br>
<br>
I noticed a few things things I would want to modify or questions I would want to answer in a specific way. I avoided modifying the document directly at this stage (and would urge others to do so as well) so that we can see how much support specific ideas have before we start re-editing.<br>
<br>
1. Step 1<br>
I think this step needs to be modified a bit to put more emphasis on ascertaining that the proposal we get from an OC has followed a proper process and actually has the consensus it claims to have. Our charter says:<br>
<br>
"Each proposal should be submitted with a clear record of how consensus has been reached for the proposal in the community, and provide an analysis that shows the proposal is in practice workable. The ICG should also compile the input it has received beyond the operational communities, and assess the impacts of this input."<br>
<br>
No major change needed here, I would simply propose to modify step 1.d. to reflect that part of the charter more closely, as follows:<br>
<br>
d. Verify the record of how consensus was reached, check if input/comments the ICG received directly were shared with the operational community and addressed by the process.<br>
<br>
2. Step 3<br>
I found it unclear whether we go through another public comment if the proposals are modified. Probably we should. If we are forced to go through the rather important step of returning a proposal to an OC and modifying some part of it, we may want to give the public another crack at expressing their support for the new totality. NTIA may want us to do that also. On the other hand we want to avoid creating opportunities for political mobilizations that seek to levels of support rather than confirming or denying them. I would listen to differing views on this.<br>
<br>
Milton L Mueller<br>
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor<br>
Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>
<a href="http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/" target="_blank">http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/</a><br>
<span><br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-" target="_blank">internal-cg-</a><br>
> <a href="mailto:bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper<br>
</span><span>> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 6:35 PM<br>
> To: ICG<br>
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Strawman proposal finalization process<br>
><br>
</span><div><div>> As discussed in the thread about ICANN 51 side meetings, it seems like it<br>
> would be helpful for us to develop a shared understanding of how we will<br>
> assemble and finalize a unified transition proposal after we start receiving<br>
> individual proposals from the operational communities and broader input<br>
> from all stakeholders. My guess is that we will not come to a firm conclusion<br>
> about all details of this process prior to ICANN 51, which is fine. But we<br>
> certainly need to come to some conclusions about it within the next few<br>
> months, so that we are prepared when we start receiving proposals from the<br>
> operational communities and input from all stakeholders.<br>
><br>
> I’ve put together a strawman proposal for a process to use to assemble and<br>
> finalize a unified transition proposal (attached and in dropbox). It is heavily<br>
> influenced by our charter. You will see that there are many open questions<br>
> — I’m just throwing this out as a starting point to get discussion going. Please<br>
> comment.<br>
><br>
> I don’t think we need to document every little detail and possible corner case<br>
> for how things might go once we start receiving proposals and input, but I do<br>
> think we should have a rough plan that we can articulate to establish<br>
> expectations about how we will proceed.<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Alissa<br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>