[Internal-cg] Open operational community processes

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Tue Sep 9 18:32:53 UTC 2014

Hopefully the responses from Narelle and Jari have cleared this up a bit
as far as protocol parameters goes.

I have some similar questions about the CWG process for names, however.

I understand from 
s> that in the CWG there will be two different levels of participation:
members and observers. Members will be appointed by ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and
SSAC (the chartering organizations). Observers may be from a chartering
organization, from a stakeholder group not represented in the CWG, or
self-appointed. Observers will be allowed to participate and contribute
input, but their views will not be taken into account in determining

Question #1: How will the CWG process yield an outcome that has “broad
support” if the consensus call only takes into account the appointed
members from ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC? What if a bunch of other
interested parties disagree with the conclusion of the members? (I’m happy
to be told that ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC comprise the full universe of
all possible interested parties and all I or some government rep or
whoever else has to do is join one of those groups to have my view heard.
Or something else. Just curious about how broad participation in
determining consensus will work.)

Question #2: Observers are required to provide a Statement of Interest.
Observers who are not part of a chartering organization are asked to use
the gNSO procedures for doing so
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>. That page appears
to require a username and password in order to access the SOI form. But I
can’t find any place on the site where I can obtain a username and
password. Can someone send a pointer?

Question #3: The existing Statement of Interest form for gNSO seems to
require public disclosure of a lot of personal information. Why is that
required to participate in the development of the transition proposal for


On 9/6/14, 5:02 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>This is the same as my last message, but I changed the header (which I
>should have done last time). If you want to respond to me, please respond
>to this message not the other one.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Since then we've brought the draft RFP into our community, and the
>> community is now busy working on an actual proposal.
>> The first draft of that proposal is out. I think the IETF's questions
>> about this topic are more in the proposal itself, and something we can
>> work on ourselves, and at
>I have a bit of a problem with this, sorry to say. While I think it's
>fine that people in IETF are developing ideas for proposals, the RFP
>makes  it clear that the process in each operational community is
>supposed to be open and transparent, and include other interested and
>affected parties. I think it would be a travesty if we release the RFP
>and the IETF announces 5 days later that they are finished.
>Even if this is presented as a "Draft," any different ideas coming from
>the outside would be dealing with what is in effect a sealed process, in
>which changes would not be welcome or even seriously considered. The IETF
>needs to convene a publicly announced, open process based on the RFP that
>we are developing.
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at icann.org
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at icann.org

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list