+1 Best wishes Nick -----Original Message----- From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of HiroHOTTA Sent: 10 April 2019 11:12 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Thank you, Katrina, I support it. Hiro On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:47:42 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Thanks again to all the suggestions! Here is a slightly tweaked version (I removed the reference to ccTLDs and added an ending to the last paragraph):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O9NGDIv-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2Xq zQsSV8 maw/edit
Please have a look asap!
Regards,
]{atrina
From: Ccnso-council [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Friday, April 05, 2019 8:02 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback?
Dear Colleagues,
As we learnt, on 9 March, right before the official start of the ICANN week, in his blog post G〓an issued a 田all to action・(see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-pa nel-ca ll-to-action) asking for community input on a set of questions about the selection and qualification of standing panellists that need to be selected to the Standing Panel to review disputes under Independent Review Process. Deadline for submitting comments is 15 April.
Why is it important for ccTLDs: although the disputes exclude 鼎laims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations; they cover, e.g. 甜disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws 鼎laims that ICANN, the Board, individual Directors, Officers or Staff members have not enforced ICANN's contractual rights with respect to the IANA Naming Function Contract・or 鼎laims regarding PTI service complaints by direct customers of the IANA naming functions that are not resolved through mediation・
I think we all agree that the community should be able to participate in the discussion on, e.g. qualifications of these panellists or the principles according to which those panellists are selected. If you look at the comments under the blog post, some of community members have already expressed their 都urprise・that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this 田all to action・either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that痴 the summary email I forward to you periodically). The idea of the Digest was that we have all the incoming requests in one place. It is impossible to monitor all channels to make sure we池e not missing anything. Blog posts should not be used to seek community input on something as important as implementation of structures described in the Bylaws.
To avoid similar situations in the future and to ensure we and other parts of our community 1) know about calls and 2) have enough time to prepare feedback, I propose that we send a letter in which we also call to action: re-launch the consultation according to proper procedure and use only one channel for gathering feedback.
If you agree, here is a draft. Your input is very much needed (do your magic)!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O9NGDIv-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2Xq zQsSV8 maw/edit
We do not have much time for this one. Would be nice if we could finalise it my Wednesday, 10 April.
Have a nice weekend,
]{atrina