[IANAOversight] Comments on ICG draft Charter
adiel at afrinic.net
Mon Aug 11 12:09:43 SAST 2014
Thank you for your comments. I will provide few personal view here (this should be read only in the context of the discussion on this list nothing more) as part of our stakeholder discussion initiative. I’m not talking for the ICG here.
I will suggest that you also send your comments directly to the ICG following the process described at https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-08-en (if you have not done it yet). I would encourage other members of the community to do the same if they wish to provide input to the Draft Charter.
On Aug 9, 2014, at 22:15 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> Below is my comments and proposed edits on the ICG draft charter
> b. Solicit broader input
> .......communities, everyone’s input is welcome across all
> I propose this to be updated as thus:
> ……the ICG will provide a process to receive and review everyone's input; this process will allow communities who don't fall within the 3 categories submit their contribution/proposal.
This has been the topic of a long discussion within the ICG and I want first of all to reinsure you that we intend to equally consider proposals that will come separately from those submitted through the 3 customer group’s processes. The way it has been put in the Charter is just to highlight the fact that the ICG will prefer comments to be consolidated through the 3 community groups, but is equally open to other proposals as well. One of the practical reason behind this is to minimise the amount of individual comments the ICG will have to deal with.
> (iii) Assembling and submitting a complete proposal
> ......verifying that the whole fulfills the intended scope,
> I suggest that the scope be clearly indicated. If the scope referred to here is the scoping document then i propose the following rewording:
> ……verifying that the whole fulfills the intended scope as defined in the scoping document,
I guess you are referring to https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-scoping-08apr14-en.pdf, and I share your view here.
> ....communities in a manner similar to what was described in task (ii) above.
> Its important to clarify that there is always a need to public comment whenver an update is done on the draft proposal. Inview of this, i propose the following re-wording:
> ….communities in a manner similar to what was described in task (ii) above and the updated draft is re-presented as described in iii above.
> (iv) Information sharing
> The ICG should serve as.....
> I don’t know which is more action based between “should" and "will" but in this context i think will may be an appropriate word here and this applies to everywhere should is used in (iv)
Editorial and this will certainly be discuss at the end of the comment period.
> .......the ICG members are listed, etc.....
> Its important to indicate the moderation status of the content of the website. So i propose the following edits:
> ……the ICG members are listed, etc.....all information on the website will be publicly available without any form of restriction like user login details
The content of the web site will always be open and freely accessible as the ICG is commit to open communication with the broad community. I’m however not sure if user authentication is to be consider as hard restriction as soon as anyone is free to easily create a login account. I’m not saying that it is what is going to happen but practically, some tools may require this king of authentication and we shouldn’t be afraid of using it as much as there is no restriction for anyone to create credentials providing a strict minimum information for that.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 313 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Url : https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/ianaoversight/attachments/20140811/bc3c4332/signature.bin
More information about the ianaoversight