[Internal-cg] Charter commenting
paf at frobbit.se
Fri Aug 8 05:36:02 UTC 2014
On 8 aug 2014, at 00:45, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> Heh, I assessed Patrik’s message based on how it ended:
> "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.
> That said, for the charter, that decides how we should operate, we
> probably must do it this way.
> So to the questions, regarding a forum. Yes, I think we can use something
> like that. That uses email interface. We can not use any web forum (that
> have been experimented with by ICANN) that requires people to adhere to
> ICANN principles of any kind.
> Comment period, 7 days as you propose, but the announcement and last day
> should be Tue-Thu, based on the fact I do not think the end time should be
> on a weekend or first day of the week anywhere on the planet.”
> I thought this was fairly specific advice about what we should do for the
> charter, but perhaps not? Patrik?
Yes, it was about the charter. And my view is the same as Adiel.
> For my part I was still considering Jari as the point person for
> processing charter comments and producing a revised charter if necessary.
> I’ve seen him do it with 100+-email threads before. ;) But that only gets
> to one of your concerns, I know.
I know individuals that have this skill. I am lucky as a chair of SSAC to have one staff support from ICANN that also knows how to do this. I am pretty lousy at it.
At the end of the day, we need to (as I wrote in my message) not only be able to receive comments and draw conclusions regarding the charter but also other issues.
We need to move now though. Every day of delay moves us closer to our next meeting and I want a charter before then.
> On 8/7/14, 3:32 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> Alissa, I think you need to re-read and perhaps re-interpret some of the
>>> -----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:
>> "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.
>> 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.
>>> ). 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
>>> major objections . So, I proposed some landing page text that asked
>>> 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.
>>>  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000414.html
>>>  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000533.html
>>>  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000635.html
>>>  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000652.html
>>>  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000759.html
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Internal-cg