[CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition

Tue Nov 11 05:07:40 UTC 2014

Actually, the process set forth by the ICG has been invoked improperly in
this case.  ICG's RFP says the following, as quoted by Mr. Hill himself.
It contemplates comments directly to the ICG in 3 instances:

Section 1 of that Request for Proposals states "some parties may choose to
provide comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular
proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICG’s own processes.
Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time via email to
icg-forum at xxxxxxxxx."

This document is not "about specific aspects of particular proposals,"
since no particular proposals exist yet.

It is not "about the community processes," nor is it "about the ICG's own
processes."

That is not to say that we should ignore this submission.  But it should
not be characterized as following a path provided by the ICG.  Rather, Mr.
Hill (or the Just Net Coalition as whole) is blazing his/its own path.

Unfortunately, the path they chose is also based on a second false premise,
which is a basic misunderstanding about how Working Groups work and how
proposals ultimately considered for adoption get created.  I think Chuck
has summarized it quite nicely, both by word and by deed.  Some of the
others most active in our work have also been Participants rather than
Members.  Mr.  Hill has chosen not to participate.  By doing so, he has
absented himself from the dialogue, the give-and-take, the development of
proposals -- the dialogue.  Instead he, or the Just Net Coalition have
chosen to deliver a monologue.

I have read the document, and I will do so again, and I will give thought
to what it says.  But no Member or Participant should be expected to "carry
the water" for this document and represent its points of view by proxy.
With my coordinator hat on, I will take notice of it and do what I can
under the circumstances to put ideas and positions from it into the stream
of discussion.  But these ideas and positions would be more likely to make
a real contribution if someone engaged in the work of the Working Group was
doing what Chuck so succinctly described.

Greg

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Guru,
>
>
>
> Are you willing and do you have the time to represent JNC’s viewpoint?
> Someone will have to do that for him if he isn’t willing to do it himself.
> If you are willing, will you be able to do it as well as he could?  If so,
> that could work, but if you cannot do that, who will?
>
>
>
> I am just a participant but I haven’t let that limit my activity in the
> CWG.  It is incumbent upon me to be able to support my positions
> sufficiently to convince others to modify their positions; if I do not,
> then they will not support ideas that I support.  If I do, then I can
> possibly have an influence on the ultimate recommendations whether I can
> officially participate in the determination of consensus levels or not.
>
>
>
> The concern about members v. participants is based on the assumption that
> voting will be used to determine the final level of consensus.  If the CWG
> follows the procedures in the charter, the CWG will continue to deliberate
> until there is strong support from most participants without resorting to a
> vote of members; besides members will involve the groups they represent in
> any positions they take and should also take into consideration the views
> expressed by those in the CWG that are different, and especially if they
> are well reasoned.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2014 10:55 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition
>
>
>
> Chuck,
>
>
>
> I think Richard's objection is a fair criticism of the process adopted by
> the names community. His objection is with respect to the two classes of
> participants in the CWG wherein consensus (and now financial resources for
> the F2Fs) is only limited to members, which come from the chartering
> organisations. Therefore, in his opinion, the process is not truly open to
> the global multi-stakeholder community. Renaming observers to participants
> does not address his concerns.
>
>
>
> Read
>
> forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00014.html and
>
> forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html and
>
> forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00013.html
>
>
>
> There are many different variants and definitions of "multi-stakeholder"
> and therefore neither of the two opinions can be said to be right or wrong.
>
>
>
> I think it is unfair to say that he shouldn't have been encouraged to
> participate in the CWG (or given that option as you call it). He has been
> extremely active in the IETF working group and on the CRISP list. He is
> providing valuable input to the other two communities, which this community
> is now missing out on.
>
>
>
> We should respect the alternate path (via ICG) that he has adopted and
> should consider his comments seriously.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Guru
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> I guess I question whether he should have been given that option.  It is
> not fair to have others who are volunteers and already overworked do his
> work.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria
> *Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2014 9:36 PM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> He was encouraged to join the list by several of us.  But he found the
> conditions in the charter unacceptable and has opted for this alternate
> path, as provided by the ICG.
>
> avri
>
> On 10-Nov-14 18:48, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Milton,
>
>
>
> I personally think it would be much better if the ICG encouraged the JNC to have a representative participate in the IANA CWG rather than forward a very long and generic document to the CWG and expect those who are committing long hours of time already taking additional long hours to decipher the JNC comments and trying to fit them in to CWG work.  If they had a representative on the CWG as participant, that person could better express JNC positions than any of us could and would be allowed to participate fully except when it comes to directly deciding consensus.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:54 AM
>
> To: 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
>
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition
>
>
>
> With my ICG member hat on, I am conveying a comment we received to this group, at their request
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html
>
>
>
> Milton L. Mueller
>
> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141111/ba9d8960/attachment-0001.html>