[Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Tue Jul 7 19:26:37 UTC 2015

Alissa,

You as always express things better than I do :-)

The key issue for ICG is the following, I think:

> Thus, in my view, that Final Proposal does not represent the consensus of
> the global multi-stakeholder community.
>
> Having carefully reviewed the Final Proposal, I formally object to it for
> the reasons detailed in the attached PDF file.
>
> Consequently, I request that the ICG return to proposal to the
> CWG-Stewardship.

I.e. there is a specific request here from Richard. I was definitely not after an infinite loop, but rather a confirmation from CWG that regarding these two issues they have indeed followed the processes they have explained in the document. Specifically as Richard writes "But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public
comment".

It is though possibly much better to, as you suggest, just point at the comment and ask for comments from the CWG.

   Patrik

On 7 Jul 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Patrik,
>
> I think there is actually only one question for the CWG here, and it’s slightly different from the ones you pose below. More comments inline.
>
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:26 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Mr Richard Hill has submitted comments in our public forum. After contemplating the input I suggest we send a question to the CWG Stewardship a request for clarification on two issues.
>>
>> Feedback on the proposed note below is appreciated.
>>
>>  Patrik Fältström
>>  ICG Co-Chair
>>
>> ==========================
>>
>> Lise, Jonathan,
>>
>> You might be aware of the input in the public comment forum of ICG from mr Richard Hill:
>>
>> <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>
>>
>> Specifically there are two claims:
>>
>> 1:
>>
>>> But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public
>>> comment […]
>
> I will quote the whole section from Richard’s comment:
>
> "But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public comment, and that at least some of the 115 input comments made on the draft proposal were not accommodated in the Final Proposal.  That is, all the comments were considered, but at least some of them were rejected.
>
> In particular, as detailed below, many of my comments were dismissed.”
>
> On the point about submitting the final proposal for public comment, I believe his formulation could well lead to an infinite loop. That is, if a document is put out for public comment, and comments are incorporated and edits are made, and then it is put out again for public comment, and comments are again incorporated and edits made … the process never ends. Thus I don’t think anyone can rightly expect that there would continue to be public comment periods forever, nor that public comment periods would continue until no comments were received or final edits made. I think what we got from the CWG was a proposal that incorporated edits based on comments received where those edits, and the proposal as a whole, achieved consensus in the CWG. An explanation of this is given on p. 49-51 of the proposal, and a thorough explanation of the disposition of every comment received in the last round is available at <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-11jun15-en.pdf>. I don’t think it would be fair for us to ask the CWG why they didn’t run a process that could produce an infinite loop. Which brings me to the next point --
>
>>
>> 2:
>>
>>> Thus, while the Final Proposal represents the consensus of the
>>> CWG-Stewardship itself, it does not necessarily represent the consensus of
>>> the global multi-stakeholder community.
>
> As explained on page 45 of the CWG proposal and in the CWG charter, the CWG is open to any interested individual. Richard claims that "CWG-Stewardship is an ICANN group, constituted under ICANN rules, so it cannot be considered to be representative of the global multi-stakeholder community,” but I don’t think that logic follows given that anyone can participate in the group. I realize that Richard chose not to participate <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html>, but that doesn’t mean the process was not open to the global community. I don’t think we need more information from the CWG to clarify this.
>
> The one area where we might need clarification is around consensus and minority views. 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.” Given 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), I assume the CWG considers their public comment analysis document referenced above to be the reference point for us to understand objections and minority views concerning the proposal. But we could ask about that specifically if folks think that is unclear.
>
> Alissa
>
>
>>
>> According to the process we use in ICG regarding comments like this (see attached document), ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we do make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC do have any input.
>>
>> ICG would like to have a clarification on these two issues, and of course anything else that you find being interesting to comments on, and would like comments no later than [insert date 14 days after this is sent].
>>
>> [signed by Alissa]
>> <Community Comments Handling-1May15-final.docx>_______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/180553a1/attachment.asc>