[Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process

Sun Jan 11 14:18:40 UTC 2015

Dear all,

i have followed and currently following all activities of CCWG and in fact
one of the main contributors for that . I am spending several hours in the
e-mail discussion and strongly defending the views of Governments.

As I informed you before, I am volunteered to closely work with those
interested in the accountability part of IANA transition related ICG
activities.

Regards

Kavouss

2015-01-11 11:01 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:

>   I agree to the proposed process.
>
> I am a participant of the cross-community working group developing a names
> proposal as well as the CCWG-ICANN Accountability.
> No participation in the number or protocol parameter process.
>
> I’d like to volunteer in the assessment of either numbers or protocol
> proposals *and* of the names proposal.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>  *From:* Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 10, 2015 11:30 PM
> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> ; Milton L Mueller
> <mueller at syr.edu>
> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process
>
>
> I know nothing about the Numbers work ..
>
> Despite joining the mailing list, I was not able to follow the Protocols
> work ..
>
> I follow closely the Names work and Accountability discussions and
> contribute views through GAC discussions and other GAC representatives ..
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> --Manal
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 10, 2015 5:40 PM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller
> *Cc:* ICG
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150111/1c8251ab/attachment.html>