[Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process

Sat Jan 10 15:39:52 UTC 2015

Alissa,
I am volunteer to take care of accountabilty part of the transition
function .
I would be happy to work with whoever is voluteering on that matter
Kavouss

2015-01-10 16:38 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> A
>
> 2015-01-09 16:05 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
>
>> I will respond with the following disclosures:
>>
>> I am on the ARIN Advisory Council and thus play a role in the numbers
>> world, but other than urging the NRO to work through a global committee
>> rather than regional ones, I have not followed or participated in the
>> numbers (CRISP) work either at the regional or global level.
>>
>> I hold Executive Committee position within the GNSO Noncommercial
>> Stakeholders Group and am an active participant in the names CWG.
>>
>> I followed the IANAPlan IETF fairly actively but on the whole was a
>> marginal(ized) participant.
>>
>> Using Patrik's useful template, I am:
>>
>>  - Outsider for the numbers work
>>  - Insider for the names work
>>  - Follower of and commentator on the protocols work
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> >
>> > - Passive follower of the protocol work
>> >
>> > - Outsider for the numbers work
>> >
>> > - Insider regarding the names work
>> >
>> > Patrik
>> >
>> > On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
>> > <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 6.01.15 23:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> > >> Hi all,
>> > >>
>> > >> At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group
>> > >> discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing
>> > >> the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise
>> > >> from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have
>> > >> been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good
>> > >> to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to
>> > >> ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and
>> > >> unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community
>> > >> affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development
>> > >> processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in
>> > place to help us out here:
>> > >>
>> > >> (1) Multitude of proposal reviews
>> > >> As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that
>> > >> we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our
>> > >> assessment
>> > >> criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each
>> > >> community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in
>> > >> question and who did not participate in the proposal development
>> > >> process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that
>> > >> through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we
>> > >> will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any
>> > >> event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment
>> of
>> > each proposal.
>> > >>
>> > >> (2) Charter limitations
>> > >> Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the
>> > >> proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to
>> > >> alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process
>> > >> is quite limited.
>> > >>
>> > >> (3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the
>> > >> proposal development processes and participation in them has been
>> > >> quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have
>> > >> been participating in which processes and only a little harder to
>> > >> figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think
>> > >> it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment
>> > >> process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus.
>> > >>
>> > >> (4) Operating by ICG consensus
>> > >> As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I
>> > >> think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG
>> > >> member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her
>> > >> own personal objectives.
>> > >>
>> > >> From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to
>> > >> ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment
>> > >> of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the
>> > >> group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the
>> > communities’
>> > >> confidence in us to have this articulated.
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >> Alissa
>> > >>
>> > >> *
>> > >>
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-
>> > >> finalization-24dec14-en.pdf
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> Internal-cg mailing list
>> > >> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > This makes sense to me.
>> > >
>> > > I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message
>> to
>> > this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of
>> proposals.
>> > This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden
>> interests or
>> > actions.
>> > >
>> > > For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the
>> proposals of
>> > the names and protocol parameters communities.
>> > >
>> > > As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public
>> > discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my
>> job
>> > at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the
>> > development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR
>> > communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
>> > >
>> > > Daniel
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150110/d545e545/attachment.html>