[Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Tue Sep 30 13:16:33 UTC 2014
From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
I agree with Manal's concern on the final sentence of Q9 1/2. Better might be to look at the level of support for the position and the way the community proposal addresses the issue.
MM: How can we assess the level of support a proposal gets unless they participate in one of the community processes? I would submit that we cannot. How can a community proposal address an issue if the proposer never participated in its process?
Let's not be naïve about this - time and again we have seen or heard comments indicating that many people still think of the proposal development process as submitting something independently to us and then we decide whether it is good or not. We need to drive home, very clearly, the point that if some group develops a proposal in their own little silo and sends it to us it is not likely to get anywhere.
On Q14 is it worth adding after the first sentence that, "Operational communities have been asked to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals."
For Q15, Manal is right about running behind the moving train. But I now realise that the answer is very ICANN centric! In part this is corrected in the next question, but I would suggest that this question should look at the operational communities and those directly engaged with them (GAC, ALAC...), while the next question could then refer to addressing those who do not take part, but will be affected - the business community, ccTLDs that are not in ICANN etc
MM: It seems then that the "real" answer to this question is that the Operational communities themselves should play a major role in the outreach to relevant non-ICANN communities
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg