[Internal-cg] use this version of the draft charter
daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
Thu Jul 17 07:56:33 UTC 2014
On 16.07.14 16:52 , Milton L Mueller wrote:
> .., (ii) Assess the outputs of the three communities of
> interest for workability, compatibility and consensus
> (ii) Assessment
> When the group receives output from the independent groups it will
> discuss and assess their workability, assess their compatibility and
> interoperability with the proposals of the other groups, and verify
> their levels of support in the respective communities. The ICG might at
> some point detect problems with the component proposals. At that point
> the role of the ICG is to communicate that back to the relevant
> communities so that they (the relevant communities) can address the
> issues. In assessing consensus, the coordination group will rely to some
> extent on its members to reflect to the rest of the group the support
> levels within the member's own community, but the group is also
> authorized to engage in independent assessments, such as public notice
> and comment periods.
I propose to strike the words "and consensus", "and verify
their levels of support in the respective communities." and
"In assessing consensus, the coordination group will rely to some
extent on its members to reflect to the rest of the group the support
levels within the member's own community, but the group is also
authorized to engage in independent assessments, such as public notice
and comment periods."
Rationale: It is not for us to judge whether consensus has been achieved
in a community/constituencey about parts of the proposals that are
developed by them. This is the task of the particular community.
The CG doing this is untenable and the only result of us pushing back
can be resistance and not progress.
It is our task to verify the level of support/consensus for the proposal
that we assemble from the parts.
More information about the Internal-cg