[Internal-cg] Charter commenting

[Milton L Mueller]

Alissa, I think you need to re-read and perhaps re-interpret some of the messages. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]

> present thread. In this thread I saw support for a public comment email
> alias/forum from Patrik, Daniel, Paul, Mohamed, and I thought originally
> yourself (“I tend to agree with Patrik”

Either you completely misread Patrik's comments, or I did.  But you certainly misread mine.

Here they are: 

Patrik: 
"I have concerns about the overall process suggested.

Originally we were hoping the various constituencies where to reach consensus on various things, and then pass it to us. That would of course not prohibit _individuals_ from sending comments to us of course. But, we would coordinate and draw conclusions on what proposals we find have the most support for.

If we completely open the door, and even encourage, complete participation from anyone in the community, we will get a process like the 1Net mailing list, where I claim the majority of the feedback comes from various people that are to be honest quite non-constructive, repetitive and...well...not helpful.
[snip] 
I just do not know how to manage the feedback. Specifically before we have a secretariat that can help us with compiling the feedback, sorting and understanding where the feedback is coming from."

/end Patrik

I interpret these comments as expressing deep skepticism about both the value of the public comment period and our ability to process It. 

So I said, "I agree with Patrik." And also said: 
"Our task is to get the thing going and not to spend 20% of our hopefully short lifespan discussing and debating our own charter. Unless we get serious and sustained objections to specific aspects of the draft from a broad spectrum of commentators from existing channels, I think we move ahead and reach consensus on the charter ourselves. I put the charter before my nominating group (the NCSG0 some time ago, and haven't heard any objections and have heard general satisfaction. GNSO people have a LOT of other things to comment upon, including the all-important CCWG that will develop a proposal for names, and imposing another comment period on the community when there is no indication that the draft charter is controversial or that the people on the ICG who drafted it are seriously misaligned with the wishes of their nominating communities strikes me as a waste of time."

Then Adiel chimed in.

I've seen some people agree with your original proposal, but none of them have answered Patrik's original concerns, or my concerns. The only real argument I've heard in favor of doing that is Adiel's that we promised we would do it in London - a promise I do not recall, but if someone can dig up conclusive evidence of it I would go along.  

> [4]). I wasn’t quite sure what to conclude based on Adiel’s comments, but it
> seemed like you and he both agreed that we could check to see if anyone has
> major objections [5]. So, I proposed some landing page text that asked the
> public for comments in the form of major objections. Did I miss some
> discussions? Or misinterpret the bit about major objections? My personal view is
> that we don’t need a public comment period and the broad outlines of the
> charter are just fine, but I was just trying to reflect the collective will of the
> people who had commented on this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> [1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000414.html
> [2] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000533.html
> [3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000635.html
> [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000652.html
> [5] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000759.html
>