[Internal-cg] "Alternatives"

Martin Boyle Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
Tue Jun 30 17:13:02 UTC 2015 

Sorry all to be late into the discussion.  

I agree that the focus of the request was more to the accountability thread, but I still think that we should at least collect what material is in place for the stewardship proposals.

I'd see the balance for the OCs of trying to ensure that they had as simple a solution as possible, incorporating the minimum of change to achieve effective and accountable stewardship, and garnering general consensus.

I would guess that the NTIA's concerns really sit in these three categories.

At least from the naming functions, there was a reference in BA to alternatives in its assessment (7 models considered, narrowed down to two, and then to a single option which was assessed in detail, always aware that a point of detail might send it back to look at the other alternative).  

Much of this assessment was fairly rapid - all the models could be seen as fulfilling the first two criteria, so it came down to, which was the option most likely to achieve general consensus?

This is probably particularly important:  there will be many who will argue that there was a failure in developing consensus because their preferred option was not chosen, or because there was some detail that they considered important that was not fleshed out or was deferred, or because they did not like the answer that those actively involved agreed on.  We've already seen one such input (http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html). 

If I were Larry, I would be keen to show that the document gave me the material I'd need to answer the inevitable question about why a particular solution was not assessed.  For us, this is probably no more than assuring ourselves that the focus was on solutions where consensus could be achieved.

CWG Stewardship can answer that quite simply with the discussion at the Istanbul meeting on 26-7 March and by reference back to its first consultation in December 2014.  This identified where views might converge (with more or less pain).

For those more directly involved in the other two OCs' work, is a similar statement possible from their discussions?


Martin



-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Mundy
Sent: 29 June 2015 06:30
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"

Keith,

I agree that documenting alternatives was probably meant for the CCWG rather than the OC's.  If some or all of the OC's want to provide material to help consolidate the public record, I think that I'd be okay with that as long as it was an optional thing for the OC's.

RussM

On Jun 28, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:

> In mentioning alternatives considered, I think Sec. Strickling was referring to the CCWG Accountability, not the ICG. Am I alone?
> 
> Best,
> Keith
> 
> 
>> On Jun 28, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:
>> 
>> To sum up the latest remarks on this thread:
>> 
>> - we will not request OCs to provide "comparative analysis of the 
>> different alternatives considered" (Manal);
>> 
>> - if we approach the OCs, for them it could only be "an opportunity 
>> to share any material they feel would support the submitted proposal, 
>> to be put on public record" (Manal);
>> 
>> - anything additional to our original remit would only be "for the 
>> purpose of consolidating the public record" (Jean-Jacques);
>> 
>> - we shall not change our remit unless we receive OFFICIAL, WRITTEN instructions to that effect (Jean-Jacques).
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Jean-Jacques.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>
>> À: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
>> Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>, "IANA etc etc 
>> Coordination Group" <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>, "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" 
>> <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
>> Envoyé: Dimanche 28 Juin 2015 09:47:55
>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"
>> 
>> 
>>> On 28 Jun 2015, at 21:41, Manal Ismail wrote:
>>> Dear Jean-Jacques ..
>>> 
>>> At least this is my understanding ..
>>> I believe, but stand to be corrected, that we're not requesting OCs 
>>> to provide comparative analysis of the different alternatives 
>>> considered, but offering an opportunity, for them, to share any 
>>> material they feel would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record ..
>> 
>> I agree.  It is an opportunity, not a requirement, to provide 
>> information about alternatives which were considered.
>> 
>> Paul.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Kind Regards
>>> --Manal
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net]
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 9:34 AM
>>> To: Manal Ismail
>>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Paul Wilson; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"
>>> 
>>> Dear Manal,
>>> I could go along with the compromise suggested by you, insofar as it 
>>> is about consolidating the public record.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Jean-Jacques.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
>>> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>, "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" 
>>> <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
>>> Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>> Envoyé: Samedi 27 Juin 2015 23:42:31
>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"
>>> 
>>> Dear All ..
>>> 
>>> I had to leave the meeting before concluding, so allow me to 
>>> re-iterate the following suggestion in writing ..
>>> 
>>> If we agree, in principle, on maintaining public record of the IANA 
>>> transition process, then the ICG, through its chair(s), may reach 
>>> out to the OCs with an email flagging ICG's intention to maintain 
>>> public record that supports the IANA transition proposal, in 
>>> accordance with Larry Strickling's remarks at the "IANA Stewardship 
>>> Transition & Evolution of ICANN Accountability" session on the 
>>> Sunday of Buenos Aires ICANN meeting 
>>> (file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/transcript-iana-stewardship-21jun1
>>> 5-en.pdf),
>>> where he stated:
>>> <insert relevant excerpt(s) if necessary> And consequently ask the 
>>> OCs to let the ICG know of any material their community believes 
>>> would be useful to add to such record (for example: implications of 
>>> the proposal, alternatives considered, reasons for excluding them, 
>>> answers to anticipated questions, etc ... ) ..
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Kind Regards
>>> --Manal
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf 
>>> Of Paul Wilson
>>> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:19 AM
>>> To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de
>>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"
>>> 
>>> Re
>>> 
>>>> IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against 
>>>> them?
>>> 
>>> I am happy with this option.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:
>>>> I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case 
>>>> they considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles 
>>>> laid down to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the 
>>>> option they have chosen.
>>> 
>>> This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the 
>>> answer we are looking for.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as:
>>> 
>>> "IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide 
>>> against them?"
>>> 
>>> Which I'd be ok with as well.
>>> 
>>> Paul.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
>> http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list