[Internal-cg] Open operational community processes

Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de
Wed Sep 10 05:45:51 UTC 2014


Re Q#2 I've sent an email to Ken Bour from ICANN staff with cc to you.  You may share with the list any further explanation coming from Ken.


Sent from my personal phone

> Am 09.09.2014 um 23:35 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
> 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
>>> 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.
>> 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
>>> form.
>>> 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
> somewhere.
>>> 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
>>> 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!
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>> Milton L Mueller
>> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
>> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list