[governance] IANA Transition - Lack of Openess

Mon Sep 22 01:52:36 EDT 2014

@Rafik: Thank you for addressing one of the substantive issues raised by
me. I appreciate your clarification that there will be no limit to the
number of observers. I further request you to clarify the following:
1) How will you reach "broad support" or consensus of the community as
mandated by NTIA if you are restricting consensus to the members (comprised
only of ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC) who do not represent the majority of
the stakeholders? For example, you may be aware that almost half of the
ccTLDs feel that they are not represented by the ccNSO. Refer
http://domainincite.com/17113-cctld-anger-over-iana-group-capture
2) Is there going to be a last date for becoming an observer or finalising
the list of observers; if yes, what will happen to the individuals who want
to join the discussion at a later point in time?; if there is no end date
for finalising the list of observers, then what is the purpose behind
creating that list?
3) What is the need for creating the group called observers when one should
ideally want everyone to observe? One could draw inspiration from the
workings of the ICG, which are open to observation by all and does not
require registration or sending a statement of purpose.
As a suggestion, wont it be simpler/transparent/inclusive to remove the
category called observers?

@Milton: I personally agree with the logic that the proposals should come
only from the operational communities as long as the proposal development
processes are open and inclusive. I only request the ICG to monitor and
ensure that the processes are genuinely open and inclusive. A review of the
three proposal development processes at this stage would be more
appropriate that ex-post fault picking.

I wish I had avoided bringing the reference to ALACs objection at the 3rd
conference call as it has distracted you from addressing the concern about
the non-inclusive proposal development processes adopted by the three
operational communities.

The part about ALACs objection may please be ignored. However, since you
have called me a liar, please allow me to refresh your memory with
reference to the transcripts from the 3rd call:

"This is Jean‐Jacques speaking. To point out something which poses a
problem for the At Large representatives, and that is, throughout the text
there is two strong distinctions between the operational communities or
entities and the rest on the other.... But from the input, right from the
start, such a strong distinction being made, seems quite curious to me, and
in fact, quite unacceptable. The proposals which will be made by the whole
of the ICG, should be part of the proposals of the operational communities,
and of other affected communities."

to which your (MM) reply is "Communities are asked to adhere to open and
inclusive processes in developing the responses. So what exactly is missing
here Jean‐Jacques?  I don’t get it.". The reply of other ICG members is
along similar lines "it is best for stakeholders to work through the
operational
communities in the creation of the operational proposals, but when you get
to the second step, which is the creation of a proposal from the
operational proposal, then the broader group of stakeholders can also
directly input to us."

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
wrote:

>   Btw -  Pseudonymous speech is fine but trying to use igc as a rather
> misinformed stalking horse for icann politics isn't a really good thing to
> do. Not that it doesn't get tried quite often..
>
> On 22 September 2014 7:40:44 am Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> >The ICG, in the RFP, has mandated that "proposals" are to come only
>> from the three operational communities.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not true. The processes are _*convened*_ by the operational communities,
>> and need to be centered there because of their direct use of the IANA
>> functions, but the processes are _*required*_ to be open.
>>
>>
>>
>> >The ICG has also proposed that any "comments" sent to the ICG by
>> individuals (not belonging to any of the three >communities) will be
>> forwarded to the operational communities for consideration.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is true. That is because people should not be misled into thinking
>> that it is the ICG that will be designing and developing the proposals.
>> People who want to make comment should participant in the operational
>> community process. Sending us comments is a sure way to make sure that the
>> people who really need to hear your comments will not get them directly.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, after we have received finished proposals from all 3 OC’s and
>> have assembled a proposal for the NTIA, there will be a public comments
>> period on the entire proposal
>>
>>
>>
>> >The rationale for excluding individuals from sending proposals is that
>> the processes initiated by the three >operational communities will be
>> inclusive and open to participation by all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not quite correct. The main rationale for not sending proposals to the
>> ICG (either from individuals or anyone else) is that WE AREN’T MAKING A
>> DECISION AS TO WHAT IS A GOOD PROPOSAL. That is to be decided in a bottom
>> up fashion in a process convened by 3 distinct Operational communities.
>>
>>
>>
>> >The opposition to this by ALAC was rejected outright by the remaining
>> members of the ICG
>>
>> > in the 3rd conference call.
>>
>>
>>
>> False, all of the amendments and clarifications sought by ALAC and by
>> NCUC were incorporated into the RFP.
>>
>> You are either lying or you did not listen to the conference call.
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140922/85414b1c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t