[Internal-cg] Strawman proposal finalization process

[Kavouss Arasteh]

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/20140923/c3ebbade/attachment.html>