[Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Wed Dec 10 22:27:38 UTC 2014
I would oppose removing it.
The word "independent" in this context does not prejudge any process or solution, but establishes a criterion that must be met.
I don't think there is any evidence that it is causing confusion. In the CWG we are having a major discussion and debate of whether an external contracting authority should be created for the names IANA functions. To my knowledge, that discussion is taking place on the merits of the contending ideas and no one in that debate has ever mentioned the ICG RFP language as pushing them in either direction.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 3:05 PM
> To: ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call
> There was one topic that I failed to include in the email below:
> - As a follow-on to the discussion of 2b, Elise suggested in the chat
> removing the word "independent" from 2b. This whole phrase comes from
> our charter, but I don't think it would hurt to remove that single word, if it's
> causing confusion.
> On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> > Attached and in Dropbox
> process-v4-wuk-alc.docx?dl=0> is proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-
> alc.docx, which reflects the discussion we had on the call and suggestions
> made on the list. I have removed comments and accepted edits that were
> provided prior to the call and were non-controversial in steps 1, 2, and 5
> (since those were the sections we discussed).
> > If you have further comments on this document, please send them to the
> list by 20:00 UTC on December 12. I will incorporate further comments
> received and then hopefully we will be ready to initiate a consensus call for
> publication on the mailing list.
> > A couple of my own comments:
> > - Please take a look at the new introduction text which is provided to
> address Adiel's comment about timeliness.
> > - I assume that people are comfortable with the text in 2(c) regarding
> testing, but please comment if not, it's possible that we didn't discuss it
> today due to lack of time more than lack of interest.
> > - In section 4, Wolf-Ulrich had a comment that we did not have time to
> > "Can we define "broad public support"? Isn't here ICG's coordination role
> required in a way to bring together those who object with the respective
> > First, I think if NTIA chooses to further articulate what it means by broad
> public support, we could certainly use that further definition. Otherwise I
> think we need to go with a plain English reading, i.e., most people and
> communities that we hear from are in favor.
> > Second, I think we can certainly encourage people with objections to get
> involved in the operational communities. I view this as a subset of what we
> have been doing all along, which is encouraging all interested parties to be
> involved in the operational community processes, so I'm not sure that it
> needs to be re-stated here.
> > Best,
> > Alissa
> > <proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg