<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Alissa:<br>
    <br>
    I might change the order of these to follow the time process.<br>
    <br>
    Start with open nature of process etc.&nbsp; I would also add a component
    of whether statements/assertions in the proposal are properly
    documented/supported.&nbsp; This goes to sufficiency as well as
    completeness.&nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    Finally might we encourage communities to submit process
    descriptions to evaluate openness and inclusion in design as
    developed? If we wait to determine that process as designed was not
    inclusive until next year that RFP has little chance of timely
    consideration.&nbsp; After the process design is agreed to be open and
    inclusive the issue of whether it was conducted as promised in
    design is part of the evaluation and that will be known by whether
    there were complaint related to it...<br>
    <br>
    Best-<br>
    <br>
    Joe<br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/7/2014 8:35 PM, Alissa Cooper
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:748EC21A-9BB3-4208-90F8-AD40F1214D86@cooperw.in"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=ISO-8859-1">
      <div>I have posted an updated version of the proposal finalization
        process, attached and in Dropbox, that accommodates comments
        from Manal and Milton.</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>I pulled the discussion questions and answers out of the
        document (and this short thread) and put them below, with some
        responses from me.</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Let&#8217;s continue discussion on the list and at the f2f meeting.</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Thanks,</div>
      <div>Alissa</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>
        <div>== Question A ==</div>
        <div>Is the list in step 1 complete? What else belongs here?</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>== Question B ==</div>
        <div>How should we handle step 1 procedurally? Should we
          delegate step 1 to one ICG member or a small group for each
          proposal, to conduct the analysis and report back to the group
          to review (as we&#8217;ve done with documents, secretariat, etc.)?</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Manal: I believe all ICG members should be equally involved
          in all proposals. &nbsp;It is important to have a holistic view.
          &nbsp;It also avoids any gaps in the overall outcome. Yet it is
          good to have a lead who holds the pen, ensures continuous
          progress, compile all comments and remarks made by ICG members
          and make sure they are accurately reflected (or resolved if
          conflicting/contradicting). &nbsp;So basically I'm in favour of one
          team and a different lead for each proposal.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Alissa: I like the approach suggested by Manal.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>== Question C ==</div>
        <div>Is the list in step 2 complete? What else belongs here?</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>== Question D ==</div>
        <div>Should we do this analysis pair-wise, as soon as we have
          two proposals that have passed step 1? Or should we wait until
          we have proposals for numbers, names, and protocol parameters
          that have passed step 1 before starting the analysis in step
          2?</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Manal: I think if 2 are ready we should proceed with
          analyzing them, and as soon as we have the third ready we
          should repeat the analysis (hopefully quicker) in light of the
          three proposals and not depend on the results of the analysis
          of the first 2. Things may look different when we see the
          holistic view.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Alissa: I agree with Manal. My only question is if it
          starts to look like one component is lagging far behind the
          others -- should we put the combination of the first two out
          for public comment (step 3) before receiving the third?</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>== Question E ==</div>
        <div>How should we handle step 2 procedurally? Should we
          delegate step 2 to one ICG member or a small group to conduct
          the analysis and report back to the group to review (as we&#8217;ve
          done with documents, secretariat, etc.)?</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Manal: I'm again in favor of one team and separate leads
          for the reasons stated above.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Alissa: I agree with Manal.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>== Question F==</div>
        <div>Do we need to add any more detail in step 3, or is the
          existing description sufficient?</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Manal: Nothing to add but I have a couple of questions.
          Should we have some place holder to step 4 of our timeline,
          which is 'Testing'? Should we link the steps above to the
          dates we have in the timeline?</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Alissa: I'm not sure there is anything we need to do vis a
          vis testing. The communities need to do their own testing.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Alissa: I added dates from the timeline. Not sure if I
          aligned them properly, though.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Milton: 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.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Alissa: Good point, we should discuss.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=ISO-8859-1">
      <div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <div>
        <div>On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Kavouss Arasteh &lt;<a
            moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>&gt;
          wrote:</div>
        <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <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">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com"
                  target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>&gt;</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">&lt;<a
                            moz-do-not-send="true"
                            href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu"
                            target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>&gt;</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&nbsp; proposal&nbsp; should&nbsp; be&nbsp; submitted&nbsp; with&nbsp;
                          a&nbsp; clear&nbsp; record&nbsp; of&nbsp; how consensus&nbsp; has&nbsp;
                          been&nbsp; reached&nbsp; for&nbsp; the&nbsp; proposal&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp;
                          community,&nbsp; and&nbsp; provide&nbsp; an analysis&nbsp; that&nbsp;
                          shows&nbsp; the&nbsp; proposal&nbsp; is&nbsp; in&nbsp; practice&nbsp;
                          workable. The&nbsp; ICG&nbsp; should&nbsp; also&nbsp; compile&nbsp;
                          the&nbsp; input&nbsp; it&nbsp; has&nbsp; received&nbsp; beyond&nbsp; the&nbsp;
                          operational&nbsp; communities,&nbsp; and&nbsp; assess&nbsp; the&nbsp;
                          impacts&nbsp; of&nbsp; this&nbsp; 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                            href="http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/"
                            target="_blank">http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/</a><br>
                          <span><br>
                            <br>
                            &gt; -----Original Message-----<br>
                            &gt; From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                              href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org"
                              target="_blank">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a>
                            [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                              href="mailto:internal-cg-" target="_blank">internal-cg-</a><br>
                            &gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                              href="mailto:bounces@icann.org"
                              target="_blank">bounces@icann.org</a>] On
                            Behalf Of Alissa Cooper<br>
                          </span><span>&gt; Sent: Monday, September 22,
                            2014 6:35 PM<br>
                            &gt; To: ICG<br>
                            &gt; Subject: [Internal-cg] Strawman
                            proposal finalization process<br>
                            &gt;<br>
                          </span>
                          <div>&gt; As discussed in the thread about
                            ICANN 51 side meetings, it seems like it<br>
                            &gt; would be helpful for us to develop a
                            shared understanding of how we will<br>
                            &gt; assemble and finalize a unified
                            transition proposal after we start receiving<br>
                            &gt; individual proposals from the
                            operational communities and broader input<br>
                            &gt; from all stakeholders. My guess is that
                            we will not come to a firm conclusion<br>
                            &gt; about all details of this process prior
                            to ICANN 51, which is fine. But we<br>
                            &gt; certainly need to come to some
                            conclusions about it within the next few<br>
                            &gt; months, so that we are prepared when we
                            start receiving proposals from the<br>
                            &gt; operational communities and input from
                            all stakeholders.<br>
                            &gt;<br>
                            &gt; I&#8217;ve put together a strawman proposal
                            for a process to use to assemble and<br>
                            &gt; finalize a unified transition proposal
                            (attached and in dropbox). It is heavily<br>
                            &gt; influenced by our charter. You will see
                            that there are many open questions<br>
                            &gt; &#8212; I&#8217;m just throwing this out as a
                            starting point to get discussion going.
                            Please<br>
                            &gt; comment.<br>
                            &gt;<br>
                            &gt; I don&#8217;t think we need to document every
                            little detail and possible corner case<br>
                            &gt; for how things might go once we start
                            receiving proposals and input, but I do<br>
                            &gt; think we should have a rough plan that
                            we can articulate to establish<br>
                            &gt; expectations about how we will proceed.<br>
                            &gt;<br>
                            &gt; Thanks,<br>
                            &gt; Alissa<br>
                            &gt;<br>
                            <br>
                          </div>
_______________________________________________<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>
                        </blockquote>
                      </div>
                      <br>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
            <br>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <br>
      <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>