<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. I would also add a component
of whether statements/assertions in the proposal are properly
documented/supported. This goes to sufficiency as well as
completeness. <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. 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’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’ve done with documents, secretariat, etc.)?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Manal: I believe all ICG members should be equally involved
in all proposals. It is important to have a holistic view.
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). 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’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 <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>
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"><<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" 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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 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>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> 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>
> <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>> Sent: Monday, September 22,
2014 6:35 PM<br>
> To: ICG<br>
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Strawman
proposal finalization process<br>
><br>
</span>
<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>
_______________________________________________<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>