[Internal-cg] Strawman proposal finalization process
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Sep 23 18:54:15 UTC 2014
2014-09-23 16:23 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
> 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
> > -----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
> > individual proposals from the operational communities and broader input
> > from all stakeholders. My guess is that we will not come to a firm
> > about all details of this process prior to ICANN 51, which is fine. But
> > 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
> > operational communities and input from all stakeholders.
> > I’ve put together a strawman proposal for a process to use to assemble
> > finalize a unified transition proposal (attached and in dropbox). It is
> > influenced by our charter. You will see that there are many open
> > — 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg