[Internal-cg] Early draft for a charter
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Tue Jul 15 17:44:14 UTC 2014
As was noted in the prep call different folks represent different
constituencies and how those groups go about developing consensus, can
inform our process, but cannot be the substance of our process. I too
will throw my hat in for the need for solutions to emerge as part of
consensus building and do not see how we can impose order or process on
a constituency that does not currently have the shared interest of a
solution. Is there any more commonality if we go one further level of
By way of placing these comments in context...
While a number of the groups more directly involved in the operations of
IANA can be categorized as businesses, and some may be members of
ICC/BASIS, the constituency I represent is the broader range of
businesses that are not directly involved in Internet Governance, but
are rather it's beneficiaries. Some of those businesses would be unable
to articulate the IANA functions, but approach these issues which some
level of trepidation related to any change that could break or impair
the Internet or their ability to use it as a channel of commerce and in
some cases also communication or societal interaction. A concept that
would broadly reflect that groups concern and interest is a Hippocratic
oath of IANA transition - First do no harm. The other tenant which was
heard in relation to the overall transition process was, to the extent
possible, test the proposals. To a limited extent there may be some
technical steps which can be taken to test proposals, in other cases,
things like scenario analysis may be an appropriate methodology.
Essentially those businesses are looking for any
demonstration/validation possible of the functionality of any new
ICC/BASIS will also be reaching out to other broad business groups not
affiliated with ICC (Recall that ICC includes national committees in
over 80 countries) to get their input to the process, but we were
waiting for a little more substance before undertaking that outreach.
Looking forward to the meeting-
PS:Is there an interest for an informal dinner on Wed?
On 7/15/2014 12:45 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> Let me contribute an essay:
> When a person or group asks you to make a decision for them,
> it is never wise to just do as they ask.
> Sometimes it may be wise to help them see the question before them more
> Often it is best just to look at them patiently until they make up their
> One person who has taught me this by example was Jon Postel.
> This says it all, so if pressed for time you can stop reading right here.
> Application to the question being discussed:
> If the names communities cannot come to consensus about the transition
> of NTIA's role by themselves, then it would not be wise for the CG to
> have any part in doing this for them, even if the names communities ask
> for it.
> The best the CG can do is to produce a unified proposal from the parts
> that *do* have consensus in their respective communities and have those
> communities come to consensus about that unified proposal.
> It may be that the names communities do not realise what is at stake for
> them and that it is in their interest to agree on *something* within a
> reasonable time. If they cannot manage this by themselves then then the
> CG cannot make this happen magically and should not try. Rather the CG
> should make a proposal that leaves out the IANA functions concerning
> names and disband.
> If the names communities should find that they need help coming to
> consensus it is up to them to find that help somewhere, possibly in
> arbitration or some other process help. That is up to them. But if they
> come to us we should say 'No'.
> NB: This is not specific to "names". I just wrote it with reference to
> this particular thread.
> Summary: Daniel fully agrees with Alissa and substantially disagrees
> with Milton.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg