[Internal-cg] IETF assessment

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Feb 3 22:35:22 UTC 2015


Alissa,
Perhaps  you forgot what you wrote
Read my mail. pls
AND SEE BELOW
Kavouss
Quoute
Example
"if the *IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to
questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an
example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input,
reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the
communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple
different times to address questions received by different factions of the
ICG"*
Unquote.
B) Quote
" * I ( Alissa) think it is our responsibility to figure out if we
collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response
to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in
such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered"*
Unquote
I conclude from the arguments you presented
Concerns / comments received from a member of community SHALL BE IGNORED.
THIS IS IN FULL CONTRADICTION WITH A BOTTON-UP INCLUSSIVE PROCESS THAT
ICANN CLAIMS IN PLACE
Sorry , there isd some difficulties in tzhe approach that you proposed

2015-02-03 23:23 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> Hi Kavouss,
>
> I’m not sure what you are referring to. I basically made the same argument
> twice.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Feb 3, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Alissa,
> I agree with that interpretation AND NOT WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS
> PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED BY YOU
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-02-03 21:15 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>
>> Hi Kavouss,
>>
>> My interpretation of what Milton was saying is that different groups of
>> ICG members would send questions back to the operational communities and
>> request formal responses as part of the Step I assessment process, possibly
>> at different times. What I was saying is that I think it would be better
>> for the ICG to gather all of its questions for the operational communities
>> and send them together at one time with one request for a formal response.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Alissa,
>> Thank you very much for comprehensive  reply
>> What you are describing that
>> A) Any querry or Comments, or concerns should not be sent to the
>> operational community because
>> Quote
>> Example
>> "if the *IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to
>> questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an
>> example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input,
>> reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the
>> communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple
>> different times to address questions received by different factions of the
>> ICG"*
>> Unquote.
>> B) Quote
>> " * I ( Alissa) think it is our responsibility to figure out if we
>> collectively have questions to ask and assemble those in a single response
>> to each community. Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in
>> such a response that a bunch of us want to see answered"*
>> Unquote
>> I conclude from the arguments you presented
>> Concerns / comments received from a member of community SHALL BE IGNORED.
>> THIS IS IN FULL CONTRADICTION WITH A BOTTON-UP INCLUSSIVE PROCESS THAT
>> ICANN CLAIMS IN PLACE
>> Sorry , there isd some difficulties in tzhe approach that you proposed
>> Kavouss
>>
>> 2015-02-03 3:42 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>>
>>> Hi Milton,
>>>
>>> A few thoughts below.
>>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:41 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From my perspective the
>>> >> assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come
>>> from
>>> >> multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to
>>> agree on, but
>>> >> it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something
>>> from that
>>> >> community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you
>>> want
>>> >> to do something else?
>>> >
>>> > I agree that the assessments are for our internal use, primarily, but
>>> of course as they are exchanged on an open list others can see them, which
>>> is good. It would be good to have an accepted assessment for the ICG as a
>>> whole. In the IETF case I deliberately went into some detail describing the
>>> process issues because I wanted to set the bar a bit higher than others had
>>> done regarding how we assess the proposals. That does not mean there is a
>>> huge problem with the IETF proposal, only that we need to be very
>>> clear-eyed about what happened and how it happened. This is better than
>>> just  rubber stamping things. To answer your question directly, any
>>> decision to ask a community for something should be based on an agreed,
>>> mutual assessment by the ICG. However, I would think that sending questions
>>> to an operational community would not require full consensus - if a
>>> significant group within ICG wants a question answered, I think we should
>>> let them ask it even if we don't share the same c
>>> > oncern.
>>>
>>> I would be concerned if we went down this path because the community
>>> consensus processes can require significant effort and resources. For
>>> example, if the IETF community needs to come to consensus about answers to
>>> questions that we ask (not sure if they do or will, just using it as an
>>> example), that involves a substantial number of steps, calls for input,
>>> reviews by area directors, etc. I don’t think it’s fair to put the
>>> communities in a position where they have to run those processes multiple
>>> different times to address questions received by different factions of the
>>> ICG. I think it is our responsibility to figure out if we collectively have
>>> questions to ask and assemble those in a single response to each community.
>>> Of course, there is no reason to leave out a question in such a response
>>> that a bunch of us want to see answered.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, I think it is that response that we need to agree on within
>>> the ICG — not necessarily a single assessment sheet per community. Having
>>> one or more assessment sheets is very helpful, but I think if we’re going
>>> to work towards some output from this step of the process, our time is
>>> better spent figuring out if we have any questions for the community and
>>> what those are, rather than perfecting an assessment sheet.
>>>
>>> >> Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive
>>> processes
>>> >
>>> > I think the IETF process was very open but struggled with
>>> inclusiveness. There is a distinction between the two.
>>> >
>>> > To illustrate the distinction, imagine a process that is open in
>>> principle but a large and vocal faction of old-timers tells newcomers that
>>> their opinions don't count. One could question the inclusiveness, not the
>>> openness. Or imagine an organization or process dominated by men that says,
>>> "we are open to participation by women" and does indeed let them in, but
>>> then uses various mechanisms to marginalize and exclude the woman who were
>>> brave enough to participate. Again one could question the inclusiveness,
>>> not the openness. I am making a conceptual point here, not a concrete
>>> accusation. ;-)
>>>
>>> I just want to note here that the ideals of open participation and
>>> complete inclusivity can be in tension. Under circumstances where anyone is
>>> allowed to participate in any manner they wish, it’s quite difficult to
>>> prevent Participant A from telling Participant B that his opinion doesn’t
>>> count — or foreclosing Participant A’s contributions of any sort -- because
>>> that involves limiting how Participant A engages in the process.
>>>
>>> In any case, in the context of the IETF proposal, I saw discussion on
>>> the basis of ideas, not on the basis of who was offering those ideas. There
>>> were pronounced agreements and disagreements among long-time participants,
>>> between newcomers and long-time participants, and among newcomers. Some
>>> ideas ended up in the rough. All pretty standard stuff in my experience.
>>>
>>> Alissa
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150203/8bd833e1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list