[Internal-cg] GAC Participation on the IANA Transition Coordination Group
alissa at cooperw.in
Fri Jul 18 07:37:52 UTC 2014
Thanks for putting this together. Some comments below.
On 7/18/14, 12:06 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at lstamour.org> wrote:
>Dear CG members,
>thank you for all the goodwill shown in our discussion earlier today.
>There was a clear focus on moving ahead, and it was a real team effort.
>As discussed, I offer the following text for your review. Once we agree
>the text, I believe the next step is to send this to the GAC Chair -
>Heather Dryden, either from the CG Chair if one has been appointed at
>that point, if not perhaps from ICANN staff (Theresa?).
>Note also: I assumed successful conclusion in Day 2 on several items
>where we seem to be well advanced; obviously if we are not able to close
>on these in Day 2, we may need to alter the text below.
>Fire away, I am sure it can be improved.
>To be sent to: Heather Dryden - GAC Chair
>the IANA Transition Coordination Group (CG) would like to thank you for
>your participation in our inaugural meeting, especially as it came in the
>middle of your vacation.
>As you likely observed, significant progress was made on several fronts.
>In particular, the CG has high alignment [reached agreement] on: 1) a
>group charter, 2) a scoping statement for our work, 3) clear expectations
>that the work be done in the respective communities, with participation
>from all stakeholders, leaving the CG the relatively narrow role of
>coordination, and 4) a nascent agreement that we would operate by
>"consensus" judged more by the merit of the objections rather then the
Suggested edits to #4:
“4) agreement that we would operate by rough consensus judged more by the
merit of objections than the number of them."
>These are important to note as these are expectations for all members of
>the CG, and it is critically important that we all commit to them. We
>have quite an ambitious goal and an aggressive timetable.
>To the question at hand, following on from the GAC request that the GAC
>be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG, and noting that the
>original allotment was not established through consultation with the GAC,
>nor of course the CG as it had not been established at that time. The CG
>recognized the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective
Suggested edits to the above two sentences, to make it clear what we
decided (and also — are we sure the original allotment was not discussed
with the GAC? don’t think we need to comment on this in any event):
The CG considered whether the GAC should be allowed to appoint five (5)
individuals to the CG rather than the two (2) seats it was originally
allotted. The CG noted that the original allotment was not established
through consultation with the CG as the CG was not yet established when
the allotments were made. The CG concluded that five GAC appointees would
be welcome in the CG granted that those appointees are committed to the
expectations outlined above. The CG recognizes the benefit to all of
gaining an early and broad perspective from governments.
>We also believe that this will allow for liasing beyond the normal GAC
>processes, and this will ultimately be key to global acceptance of the
I’m not sure what is meant by “liaising” above (nor who is doing the
liaising) — might just be that a word edit is needed.
>The CG also asked for assurance that there would be participation from
>the GAC in other IANA Transition community efforts. In other words,
>increased participation in the CG should not supplant participation in
>other community efforts related to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
>In closing, we would like to thank the GAC for working with us through
>this process, and believe we have a solution that will benefit us all in
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg