[Internal-cg] Strawman proposal finalization process

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Wed Oct 8 00:35:14 UTC 2014


I have posted an updated version of the proposal finalization process, attached and in Dropbox, that accommodates comments from Manal and Milton.

I pulled the discussion questions and answers out of the document (and this short thread) and put them below, with some responses from me.

Let’s continue discussion on the list and at the f2f meeting.

Thanks,
Alissa


== Question A ==
Is the list in step 1 complete? What else belongs here?

== Question B ==
How should we handle step 1 procedurally? Should we delegate step 1 to one ICG member or a small group for each proposal, to conduct the analysis and report back to the group to review (as we’ve done with documents, secretariat, etc.)?

Manal: I believe all ICG members should be equally involved in all proposals.  It is important to have a holistic view.  It also avoids any gaps in the overall outcome. Yet it is good to have a lead who holds the pen, ensures continuous progress, compile all comments and remarks made by ICG members and make sure they are accurately reflected (or resolved if conflicting/contradicting).  So basically I'm in favour of one team and a different lead for each proposal.

Alissa: I like the approach suggested by Manal.

== Question C ==
Is the list in step 2 complete? What else belongs here?

== Question D ==
Should we do this analysis pair-wise, as soon as we have two proposals that have passed step 1? Or should we wait until we have proposals for numbers, names, and protocol parameters that have passed step 1 before starting the analysis in step 2?

Manal: I think if 2 are ready we should proceed with analyzing them, and as soon as we have the third ready we should repeat the analysis (hopefully quicker) in light of the three proposals and not depend on the results of the analysis of the first 2. Things may look different when we see the holistic view.

Alissa: I agree with Manal. My only question is if it starts to look like one component is lagging far behind the others -- should we put the combination of the first two out for public comment (step 3) before receiving the third?

== Question E ==
How should we handle step 2 procedurally? Should we delegate step 2 to one ICG member or a small group to conduct the analysis and report back to the group to review (as we’ve done with documents, secretariat, etc.)?

Manal: I'm again in favor of one team and separate leads for the reasons stated above.

Alissa: I agree with Manal.

== Question F==
Do we need to add any more detail in step 3, or is the existing description sufficient?

Manal: Nothing to add but I have a couple of questions. Should we have some place holder to step 4 of our timeline, which is 'Testing'? Should we link the steps above to the dates we have in the timeline?

Alissa: I'm not sure there is anything we need to do vis a vis testing. The communities need to do their own testing.

Alissa: I added dates from the timeline. Not sure if I aligned them properly, though.

Milton: I found it unclear whether we go through another public comment if the proposals are modified. Probably we should. If we are forced to go through the rather important step of returning a proposal to an OC and modifying some part of it, we may want to give the public another crack at expressing their support for the new totality. NTIA may want us to do that also. On the other hand we want to avoid creating opportunities for political mobilizations that seek to levels of support rather than confirming or denying them. I would listen to differing views on this.

Alissa: Good point, we should discuss.





On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
> Good start
> Let us working on that as soon as possible
> Please could someone create a naming and version and then moving ahead
> Perhaps we could also discuss that at our third f2f meeting
> I will comeback to you soon.
> One important element to be added to Manal,s updated version is partial or total overlap
> Kavouss
> 
> 
> 2014-09-23 20:54 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
> Dear A
> 
> 2014-09-23 16:23 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
> Alissa
> This is a great start. It does adhere closely to the charter and raises good questions about decisions we have to make.
> 
> I noticed a few things things I would want to modify or questions I would want to answer in a specific way. I avoided modifying the document directly at this stage (and would urge others to do so as well) so that we can see how much support specific ideas have before we start re-editing.
> 
> 1. Step 1
> I think this step needs to be modified a bit to put more emphasis on ascertaining that the proposal we get from an OC has followed a proper process and actually has the consensus it claims to have. Our charter says:
> 
> "Each  proposal  should  be  submitted  with  a  clear  record  of  how consensus  has  been  reached  for  the  proposal  in  the  community,  and  provide  an analysis  that  shows  the  proposal  is  in  practice  workable. The  ICG  should  also  compile  the  input  it  has  received  beyond  the  operational  communities,  and  assess  the  impacts  of  this  input."
> 
> No major change needed here, I would simply propose to modify step 1.d. to reflect that part of the charter more closely, as follows:
> 
> d. Verify the record of how consensus was reached, check if input/comments the ICG received directly were shared with the operational community and addressed by the process.
> 
> 2. Step 3
> I found it unclear whether we go through another public comment if the proposals are modified. Probably we should. If we are forced to go through the rather important step of returning a proposal to an OC and modifying some part of it, we may want to give the public another crack at expressing their support for the new totality. NTIA may want us to do that also. On the other hand we want to avoid creating opportunities for political mobilizations that seek to levels of support rather than confirming or denying them. I would listen to differing views on this.
> 
> Milton L Mueller
> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-
> > bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 6:35 PM
> > To: ICG
> > Subject: [Internal-cg] Strawman proposal finalization process
> >
> > As discussed in the thread about ICANN 51 side meetings, it seems like it
> > would be helpful for us to develop a shared understanding of how we will
> > assemble and finalize a unified transition proposal after we start receiving
> > individual proposals from the operational communities and broader input
> > from all stakeholders. My guess is that we will not come to a firm conclusion
> > about all details of this process prior to ICANN 51, which is fine. But we
> > certainly need to come to some conclusions about it within the next few
> > months, so that we are prepared when we start receiving proposals from the
> > operational communities and input from all stakeholders.
> >
> > I’ve put together a strawman proposal for a process to use to assemble and
> > finalize a unified transition proposal (attached and in dropbox). It is heavily
> > influenced by our charter. You will see that there are many open questions
> > — I’m just throwing this out as a starting point to get discussion going. Please
> > comment.
> >
> > I don’t think we need to document every little detail and possible corner case
> > for how things might go once we start receiving proposals and input, but I do
> > think we should have a rough plan that we can articulate to establish
> > expectations about how we will proceed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alissa
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141007/e673771a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: proposal-finalization-process-v1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 118594 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141007/e673771a/proposal-finalization-process-v1.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141007/e673771a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list