[Internal-cg] Open operational community processes

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Tue Sep 9 21:35:03 UTC 2014

Hi Milton,

Thanks, this is very helpful. A couple of comments below.

On 9/9/14, 2:58 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>Very good questions, Alissa. More specific responses in line below:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 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
>> 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
>> has to do is join one of those groups to have my view heard.
>I was not able to play a significant role in the chartering of the CCWG
>by the GNSO/CCNSO, but made it clear to our NCSG reps that I did _not_
>favor a member/observer distinction. The response I got was that in the
>more politically fraught world of DNS many of the stakeholder groups fear
>that the WG would be unbalanced with unrestricted participation. E.g.,
>dozens of (pick your least favorite stakeholder group - trademark
>lawyers, civil society, registries, registrars, rastafarians, English
>octogenarians...) might "stack" the group and make it appear as if one
>option had predominant support, when in fact it was mainly supported by
>only one or two mobilized groups.
>The idea is that representation in the CCWG will be balanced for purposes
>of consensus determination, just as representation on our own ICG is, and
>any proposal that wins support among that representationally balanced
>group probably has broad enough support to be put up for public comment
>as a community proposal. While I personally still prefer the more open
>structure, I don't think this is an unreasonable view, especially given
>that the composition of the ICG itself is based on a similar logic. The
>putput of the CCWG, moreover, will have to pass some kind of open public
>comment test, afaik.

Ok, I understand.

>> 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
>> But I can’t find any place on the site where I can obtain a username and
>> password. Can someone send a pointer?
>Ask ICANN GNSO staff for how to do this. Glen de Saint Géry
><Glen at icann.org> Or maybe Wolf or Keith or someone more enmeshed in the
>tentacles of the GNSO council can tell you.

I wasn’t purely asking for myself — if this is what any outsider needs to
do to participate, it might help for the process to be made clear

>> 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
>> names?
>I do not support this requirement at all, but, again, it is motivated by
>concerns over stealth stakeholder imbalances and conflicts of interest,
>as it is not unusual for people in the DNS environment to pretend to be,
>say, nonprofit when they are really stalking horses for some kind of
>business interest. I would hope the CCWG could be motivated to alter that
>requirement, as it constitutes a barrier with few compensating advantages.

Me too!


>Milton L Mueller
>Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
>Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at icann.org

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list