From rhill at hill-a.ch Fri Aug 7 05:18:08 2015 From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:18:08 +0200 Subject: [Icg-forum] Comment on handling of my previous comment on the CWG-Stewardship proposal Message-ID: <000001d0d0d0$7288d750$579a85f0$@ch> I refer to the E-Mail sent by the co-chair of the ICG to the co-chairs of CWG-Stewardship: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-August/004003.html In this E-Mail, the co-chair of the ICG makes some comments on my comments regarding the CWG-Stewardship proposal. I have both substantive and procedural comments regarding the comments of the ICG co-chair. 1. Substantive comments ======================= The ICG co-chair states "Regarding Richard's claim about the final proposal not having gone out for public comment, in our view what he suggests could yield a process that never ends, given that further comments can always be provided whenever a document is put out for public comment. Thus requiring a 'final' document to be put out for public comment is an unreasonable requirement for a process intended to terminate." The normal process for developing consensus documents is to put out for public comment any significant revisions to a previous version. In some organizations, this process is continued until consensus is reached. In other organizations, there is some process by which a formal decision can be made (e.g. voting, or the IETF's "rough consensus") to stop discussions and to publish the document even if there are still some objections. I've never seen a consensus process in which a significantly revised version of a document is not put out for public comment before formal approval. The co-chair of ICG states: "Regarding his claim about the global multistakeholder community, our understanding of the CWG's charter is that the group is open to any interested participant." That is correct, but, as I've stated repeatedly, "participants" in the CWG do not have the same decision making rights as "members", so the CWG process is, in my view, not fully open. The co-chair of the ICG states: "Regarding his claim about his specific comments on the proposal, we note that the CWG proposal states on p. 51 that 'The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration.' We note that rationales were given and CWG consensus positions explained for each comment received during the public comment period that was not included in the proposal (including Richard's)." That is correct, the proposal represents the consensus of the CWG-Stewardship. That does not necessarily represent the consensus of the global multistakeholder community. Indeed, how can anybody know what the global multistakeholder community thinks of the proposal, since it was not put out for public comment before being transmitted to the ICG? I do understand that the proposal is now out for public comment, as part of the combined proposal presented by the ICG, and I will be submitting comments on that combined proposal in due course. But I wish to place on the record that the final CWG-Stewardship proposal was not submitted for public comment prior to transmission to ICG. 2. Procedural comments ====================== The ICG's internal rules for dealing with comments submitted to it are at: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Community-Comments-Handling-1May1 5-final.pdf I don't see any provision in those rules for the ICG to evaluate comments addressed to the operational communities. So I would like to know on what basis the ICG saw fit to send its opinion of my comments to CWG-Stewardship before CWG-Stewardship formed its own opinion of my comments. Best, Richard From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Aug 17 17:37:04 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:37:04 -0700 Subject: [Icg-forum] Response from the ICG Message-ID: Dear Richard, This mail is in response to these comments provided on the ICG forum: . Thank you for submitting your comments to the ICG. We note your view on the process for consensus in CWG Stewardship for the document produced. The ICG also notes that the CWG Stewardship has taken notice of your view as explained in email from Lise Fuhr that can be found here: . The ICG evaluation of how the CWG Stewardship process meets the NTIA requirements is in the ICG document that is out for open consultation as explained here: . Regarding the specific question on what is the basis for ICG to evaluate comments addressed to the operational communities, please have a look at section 2a in the ICG comments handling process , which says "ICG in its discretion will raise the issues or question to the relevant OC with a request that they provide a timely and appropriate reply." This was exactly what ICG did. In general the ICG has the ability at any time to make a statement as long as we fulfil our mandate and charter. Furthermore, the original comments posted in the ICG Forum were not addressed to the CWG Stewardship but instead addressed to the ICG, and because of that the ICG did take action. Kind Regards, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: