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 Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8 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
Dear Katrina This looks like a good issue to raise and I think that the draft letter does that effectively. Thank you! Cheers Jordan On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 06:02, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As we learnt, on 9 March, right before the official start of the ICANN week, in his blog post Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8...
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
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
-- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Hi Katrina Agreed. It’s very strange to launch this via a blog. I have suggested a little more background in the letter (effectively what you put in your email explaining the issue). Assuming they don’t reissue the questions and a response is therefore due by 15 April, do we need to have a plan to get a response in? Best Nick From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: 07 April 2019 21:27 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Dear Katrina This looks like a good issue to raise and I think that the draft letter does that effectively. Thank you! Cheers Jordan On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 06:02, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, As we learnt, on 9 March, right before the official start of the ICANN week, in his blog post Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8... 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 _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council -- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
+1, and I have the same question, do we have a plan B to response? Regards M.- Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM - UAI Attorney - Legal and Business Manager NIC Chile - Faculty of Physical and Mathematical Sciences University of Chile www.nic.cl Tel: +56229407734 El 08-04-19 a las 11:10, Nick Wenban-Smith escribió:
Hi Katrina
Agreed. It’s very strange to launch this via a blog.
I have suggested a little more background in the letter (effectively what you put in your email explaining the issue).
Assuming they don’t reissue the questions and a response is therefore due by 15 April, do we need to have a plan to get a response in?
Best
Nick
*From:*Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* 07 April 2019 21:27 *To:* Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> *Cc:* ccnso-council@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback?
Dear Katrina
This looks like a good issue to raise and I think that the draft letter does that effectively. Thank you!
Cheers
Jordan
On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 06:02, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As we learnt, on 9 March, right before the official start of the ICANN week, in his blog post Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8...
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
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
--
Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
+ 1. Best, Giovanni [cid:image002.jpg@01D4EE38.0A1A1DD0]<http://www.eurid.eu/>Giovanni Seppia / External Relations Manager Phone: +32 (0)2 401 27 50 Mobile: +39 335 8141733 Website: www.eurid.eu<http://www.eurid.eu> Address: Woluwelaan 150 - 1831 Diegem - Belgium [cid:image007.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30]<https://twitter.com/EUregistry> [cid:image008.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/eurid/> [cid:image009.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Margarita Valdés Sent: 08 April 2019 17:21 To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? +1, and I have the same question, do we have a plan B to response? Regards M.- Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM - UAI Attorney - Legal and Business Manager NIC Chile - Faculty of Physical and Mathematical Sciences University of Chile www.nic.cl<http://www.nic.cl> Tel: +56229407734 El 08-04-19 a las 11:10, Nick Wenban-Smith escribió: Hi Katrina Agreed. It’s very strange to launch this via a blog. I have suggested a little more background in the letter (effectively what you put in your email explaining the issue). Assuming they don’t reissue the questions and a response is therefore due by 15 April, do we need to have a plan to get a response in? Best Nick From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org><mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: 07 April 2019 21:27 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv><mailto:katrina@nic.lv> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Dear Katrina This looks like a good issue to raise and I think that the draft letter does that effectively. Thank you! Cheers Jordan On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 06:02, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, As we learnt, on 9 March, right before the official start of the ICANN week, in his blog post Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8... 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 _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council -- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer https://eurid.eu/en/other-infomation/privacy-policy
+1 On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 12:23 PM Giovanni Seppia <Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu> wrote:
+ 1.
Best,
Giovanni
<http://www.eurid.eu/>*Giovanni Seppia* */ External Relations Manager*
Phone: +32 (0)2 401 27 50
Mobile: +39 335 8141733
Website: www.eurid.eu
Address: Woluwelaan 150 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Woluwelaan+150&entry=gmail&source=g> - 1831 Diegem - Belgium
[image: cid:image007.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://twitter.com/EUregistry> [image: cid:image008.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/eurid/> [image: cid:image009.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry>
*From:* Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Margarita Valdés *Sent:* 08 April 2019 17:21 *To:* ccnso-council@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback?
+1, and I have the same question, do we have a plan B to response?
Regards
M.-
Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM - UAI
Attorney - Legal and Business Manager
NIC Chile - Faculty of Physical and Mathematical Sciences
University of Chile
www.nic.cl
Tel: +56229407734
El 08-04-19 a las 11:10, Nick Wenban-Smith escribió:
Hi Katrina
Agreed. It’s very strange to launch this via a blog.
I have suggested a little more background in the letter (effectively what you put in your email explaining the issue).
Assuming they don’t reissue the questions and a response is therefore due by 15 April, do we need to have a plan to get a response in?
Best
Nick
*From:* Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* 07 April 2019 21:27 *To:* Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> <katrina@nic.lv> *Cc:* ccnso-council@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback?
Dear Katrina
This looks like a good issue to raise and I think that the draft letter does that effectively. Thank you!
Cheers
Jordan
On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 06:02, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As we learnt, on 9 March, right before the official start of the ICANN week, in his blog post Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8...
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
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
--
Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
*Disclaimer:*
* This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy <https://eurid.eu/en/other-infomation/privacy-policy>. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses.*
Other languages: English <http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer> Estonian <http://www.eurid.eu/et/legal-disclaimer> Italian <http://www.eurid.eu/it/legal-disclaimer> Maltese <http://www.eurid.eu/mt/legal-disclaimer> Romanian <http://www.eurid.eu/ro/legal-disclaimer> Swedish <http://www.eurid.eu/sv/legal-disclaimer> Czech <http://www.eurid.eu/cs/legal-disclaimer> Spanish <http://www.eurid.eu/es/legal-disclaimer> Latvian <http://www.eurid.eu/lv/legal-disclaimer> Dutch <http://www.eurid.eu/nl/legal-disclaimer> Slovak <http://www.eurid.eu/sk/legal-disclaimer> Greek <http://www.eurid.eu/el/legal-disclaimer> Danish <http://www.eurid.eu/da/legal-disclaimer> French <http://www.eurid.eu/fr/legal-disclaimer> Lithuanian <http://www.eurid.eu/lt/legal-disclaimer> Polish <http://www.eurid.eu/pl/legal-disclaimer> Slovenian <http://www.eurid.eu/sl/legal-disclaimer> Bulgarian <http://www.eurid.eu/bg/legal-disclaimer> German <http://www.eurid.eu/de/legal-disclaimer> Gaelic <http://www.eurid.eu/ga/legal-disclaimer> Hungarian <http://www.eurid.eu/hu/legal-disclaimer> Portuguese <http://www.eurid.eu/pt/legal-disclaimer> Finnish <http://www.eurid.eu/fi/legal-disclaimer> Croatian <http://www.eurid.eu/hr/legal-disclaimer> _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
-- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
+1 Have a great week! Laura El El lun, 8 de abr. de 2019 a las 13:23, Giovanni Seppia < Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu> escribió:
+ 1.
Best,
Giovanni
<http://www.eurid.eu/>*Giovanni Seppia* */ External Relations Manager*
Phone: +32 (0)2 401 27 50
Mobile: +39 335 8141733
Website: www.eurid.eu
Address: Woluwelaan 150 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Woluwelaan+150&entry=gmail&source=g> - 1831 Diegem - Belgium
[image: cid:image007.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://twitter.com/EUregistry> [image: cid:image008.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/eurid/> [image: cid:image009.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry>
*From:* Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Margarita Valdés *Sent:* 08 April 2019 17:21 *To:* ccnso-council@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback?
+1, and I have the same question, do we have a plan B to response?
Regards
M.-
Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM - UAI
Attorney - Legal and Business Manager
NIC Chile - Faculty of Physical and Mathematical Sciences
University of Chile
www.nic.cl
Tel: +56229407734
El 08-04-19 a las 11:10, Nick Wenban-Smith escribió:
Hi Katrina
Agreed. It’s very strange to launch this via a blog.
I have suggested a little more background in the letter (effectively what you put in your email explaining the issue).
Assuming they don’t reissue the questions and a response is therefore due by 15 April, do we need to have a plan to get a response in?
Best
Nick
*From:* Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* 07 April 2019 21:27 *To:* Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> <katrina@nic.lv> *Cc:* ccnso-council@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback?
Dear Katrina
This looks like a good issue to raise and I think that the draft letter does that effectively. Thank you!
Cheers
Jordan
On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 06:02, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As we learnt, on 9 March, right before the official start of the ICANN week, in his blog post Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8...
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
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
--
Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
*Disclaimer:*
* This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy <https://eurid.eu/en/other-infomation/privacy-policy>. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses.*
Other languages: English <http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer> Estonian <http://www.eurid.eu/et/legal-disclaimer> Italian <http://www.eurid.eu/it/legal-disclaimer> Maltese <http://www.eurid.eu/mt/legal-disclaimer> Romanian <http://www.eurid.eu/ro/legal-disclaimer> Swedish <http://www.eurid.eu/sv/legal-disclaimer> Czech <http://www.eurid.eu/cs/legal-disclaimer> Spanish <http://www.eurid.eu/es/legal-disclaimer> Latvian <http://www.eurid.eu/lv/legal-disclaimer> Dutch <http://www.eurid.eu/nl/legal-disclaimer> Slovak <http://www.eurid.eu/sk/legal-disclaimer> Greek <http://www.eurid.eu/el/legal-disclaimer> Danish <http://www.eurid.eu/da/legal-disclaimer> French <http://www.eurid.eu/fr/legal-disclaimer> Lithuanian <http://www.eurid.eu/lt/legal-disclaimer> Polish <http://www.eurid.eu/pl/legal-disclaimer> Slovenian <http://www.eurid.eu/sl/legal-disclaimer> Bulgarian <http://www.eurid.eu/bg/legal-disclaimer> German <http://www.eurid.eu/de/legal-disclaimer> Gaelic <http://www.eurid.eu/ga/legal-disclaimer> Hungarian <http://www.eurid.eu/hu/legal-disclaimer> Portuguese <http://www.eurid.eu/pt/legal-disclaimer> Finnish <http://www.eurid.eu/fi/legal-disclaimer> Croatian <http://www.eurid.eu/hr/legal-disclaimer> _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Hi, Thanks to Nick and Hiro for their edits. As to Nick’s question: the GRC discussed the possible response and the initial approach was that while it is a good idea to entrust experts with selecting the panellists, the community needs to have control over the process. However, currently I have no time to work on it. We need to think about it properly, not just write something. ICANN org should follow the procedure. If we get the letter out, other groups might support it. Therefore, I would suggest removing the reference to the specific ccNSO interest. The matter and the principle of adhering to the proper procedure is important for all groups. Also, do we really need to quote the questions from the blog post? If they do not remember them, they can always re-read the blog ☺ Thanks, ]{atrina From: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> Date: Monday, 8 April 2019 at 18:10 To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Hi Katrina Agreed. It’s very strange to launch this via a blog. I have suggested a little more background in the letter (effectively what you put in your email explaining the issue). Assuming they don’t reissue the questions and a response is therefore due by 15 April, do we need to have a plan to get a response in? Best Nick From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: 07 April 2019 21:27 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Dear Katrina This looks like a good issue to raise and I think that the draft letter does that effectively. Thank you! Cheers Jordan On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 06:02, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote: Dear Colleagues, As we learnt, on 9 March, right before the official start of the ICANN week, in his blog post Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8... 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 _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council -- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Hi Kristina – just suggestions feel free to use any you think are useful. In terms of my thinking, the ccTLD interest really was to explain why this is an important topic for us – obviously all of the other ECs have the same interest and also other gTLD registries in relation to the IANA functions. But the audience for this letter which will of course be made public is the community at large rather than Goran. And to try to make it look unreasonable for ICANN to refuse the request. In terms of the questions, it means all the info is in one place and so it is just easier to see what this is about in terms of the context of the process concerns (for the community readers who may not have read Goran’s blog). I don’t know whether other parties have the same concerns over process, I believe the RySG are working on a response by 15 April, but I do know this is a topic of high interest to them (for the same reasons it is for us I guess!). Might be worth asking Keith or Donna? I do agree with your fundamental point which is that the substantive questions being asked here about panellist appointment is something that needs proper thought and consideration, hence proper process for community input. Best Nick From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Sent: 08 April 2019 20:35 To: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Hi, Thanks to Nick and Hiro for their edits. As to Nick’s question: the GRC discussed the possible response and the initial approach was that while it is a good idea to entrust experts with selecting the panellists, the community needs to have control over the process. However, currently I have no time to work on it. We need to think about it properly, not just write something. ICANN org should follow the procedure. If we get the letter out, other groups might support it. Therefore, I would suggest removing the reference to the specific ccNSO interest. The matter and the principle of adhering to the proper procedure is important for all groups. Also, do we really need to quote the questions from the blog post? If they do not remember them, they can always re-read the blog ☺ Thanks, ]{atrina From: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> Date: Monday, 8 April 2019 at 18:10 To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Hi Katrina Agreed. It’s very strange to launch this via a blog. I have suggested a little more background in the letter (effectively what you put in your email explaining the issue). Assuming they don’t reissue the questions and a response is therefore due by 15 April, do we need to have a plan to get a response in? Best Nick From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: 07 April 2019 21:27 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Dear Katrina This looks like a good issue to raise and I think that the draft letter does that effectively. Thank you! Cheers Jordan On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 06:02, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, As we learnt, on 9 March, right before the official start of the ICANN week, in his blog post Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8... 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 _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council -- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Hi Kristina
You call me Kristina again, I will call you Mick… Or John.
Might be worth asking Keith or Donna?
I had an email exchange with Donna before I drafted this. Regards, ]{atrina From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Sent: 08 April 2019 20:35 To: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Hi, Thanks to Nick and Hiro for their edits. As to Nick’s question: the GRC discussed the possible response and the initial approach was that while it is a good idea to entrust experts with selecting the panellists, the community needs to have control over the process. However, currently I have no time to work on it. We need to think about it properly, not just write something. ICANN org should follow the procedure. If we get the letter out, other groups might support it. Therefore, I would suggest removing the reference to the specific ccNSO interest. The matter and the principle of adhering to the proper procedure is important for all groups. Also, do we really need to quote the questions from the blog post? If they do not remember them, they can always re-read the blog ☺ Thanks, ]{atrina From: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> Date: Monday, 8 April 2019 at 18:10 To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Hi Katrina Agreed. It’s very strange to launch this via a blog. I have suggested a little more background in the letter (effectively what you put in your email explaining the issue). Assuming they don’t reissue the questions and a response is therefore due by 15 April, do we need to have a plan to get a response in? Best Nick From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: 07 April 2019 21:27 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Dear Katrina This looks like a good issue to raise and I think that the draft letter does that effectively. Thank you! Cheers Jordan On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 06:02, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote: Dear Colleagues, As we learnt, on 9 March, right before the official start of the ICANN week, in his blog post Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8... 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 _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council -- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Very sorry! Sent from my iPhone On 8 Apr 2019, at 21:37, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote:
Hi Kristina
You call me Kristina again, I will call you Mick… Or John.
Might be worth asking Keith or Donna?
I had an email exchange with Donna before I drafted this. Regards, ]{atrina From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Sent: 08 April 2019 20:35 To: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Hi, Thanks to Nick and Hiro for their edits. As to Nick’s question: the GRC discussed the possible response and the initial approach was that while it is a good idea to entrust experts with selecting the panellists, the community needs to have control over the process. However, currently I have no time to work on it. We need to think about it properly, not just write something. ICANN org should follow the procedure. If we get the letter out, other groups might support it. Therefore, I would suggest removing the reference to the specific ccNSO interest. The matter and the principle of adhering to the proper procedure is important for all groups. Also, do we really need to quote the questions from the blog post? If they do not remember them, they can always re-read the blog ☺ Thanks, ]{atrina From: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> Date: Monday, 8 April 2019 at 18:10 To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Hi Katrina Agreed. It’s very strange to launch this via a blog. I have suggested a little more background in the letter (effectively what you put in your email explaining the issue). Assuming they don’t reissue the questions and a response is therefore due by 15 April, do we need to have a plan to get a response in? Best Nick From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: 07 April 2019 21:27 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Dear Katrina This looks like a good issue to raise and I think that the draft letter does that effectively. Thank you! Cheers Jordan On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 06:02, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, As we learnt, on 9 March, right before the official start of the ICANN week, in his blog post Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8... 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 _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council -- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
+1 From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 4:27 PM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? [ THIS IS AN EXTERNAL E-MAIL ] Dear Katrina This looks like a good issue to raise and I think that the draft letter does that effectively. Thank you! Cheers Jordan On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 06:02, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, As we learnt, on 9 March, right before the official start of the ICANN week, in his blog post Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8... 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 _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council -- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8 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 Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8 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
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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8 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$B".(Ban issued a $BED(Ball to action$BG(B(see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-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 $BE$(Blaims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;$BG(B they cover, e.g. $BE<(Bdisputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws$BG(B $BE$(Blaims 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$BG(Bor $BE$(Blaims regarding PTI service complaints by direct customers of the IANA naming functions that are not resolved through mediation$BG(B
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 $BET(Burprise$BG(Bthat such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this $BED(Ball to action$BG(Beither; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that$BCT(B the summary email I forward to you periodically). The idea of the Digest was that we have all the incoming requests in one place. It is impossible to monitor all channels to make sure we$BCS(Be 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8 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
+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
I support it! On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:48 AM 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8...
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 Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8...
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
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
-- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
Hi Katrina:I support!Regards Jian 发自 iPhone 版 Yahoo 邮箱 星期三, 四月 10, 2019, 5:47 上午 于 Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>写道： #yiv2008427584 #yiv2008427584 -- _filtered #yiv2008427584 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2008427584 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv2008427584 #yiv2008427584 p.yiv2008427584MsoNormal, #yiv2008427584 li.yiv2008427584MsoNormal, #yiv2008427584 div.yiv2008427584MsoNormal {margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0cm;line-height:105%;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv2008427584 a:link, #yiv2008427584 span.yiv2008427584MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2008427584 a:visited, #yiv2008427584 span.yiv2008427584MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2008427584 span.yiv2008427584EmailStyle17 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv2008427584 span.yiv2008427584EmailStyle18 {font-family:sans-serif;color:#1F497D;}#yiv2008427584 .yiv2008427584MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv2008427584 {margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}#yiv2008427584 div.yiv2008427584WordSection1 {}#yiv2008427584 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8... 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 Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8... 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 _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Katrina, This looks fine. I would drop the “a” in the last clause of the last sentence (“… they are no substitute for due process.”). Best Regards, /Stephen From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 05:48 To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8... 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 Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8... 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
Yup, thanks, deleted :) ]{atrina From: Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC [mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 3:25 PM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? Katrina, This looks fine. I would drop the “a” in the last clause of the last sentence (“… they are no substitute for due process.”). Best Regards, /Stephen From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> > Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 05:48 To: "ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> " <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback? 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8... 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 <mailto: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 Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8... 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
Looking good! Jordan On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 02:01, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Yup, thanks, deleted J
]{atrina
*From:* Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC [mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as] *Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2019 3:25 PM *To:* Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>; ccnso-council@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback?
Katrina,
This looks fine. I would drop the “a” in the last clause of the last sentence (“… they are no substitute for due process.”).
Best Regards,
/Stephen
*From: *Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> *Date: *Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 05:48 *To: *"ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback?
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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8...
Please have a look asap!
Regards,
]{atrina
*From:* Ccnso-council [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org <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 Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8...
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
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
-- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
+1! - Young-eum Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Apr 2019, at 04:14, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Looking good! Jordan
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 02:01, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote: Yup, thanks, deleted J
]{atrina
From: Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC [mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 3:25 PM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback?
Katrina,
This looks fine. I would drop the “a” in the last clause of the last sentence (“… they are no substitute for due process.”).
Best Regards,
/Stephen
From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 05:48 To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Should blogs ask for community feedback?
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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8...
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 Göran issued a “call to action” (see: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-ca...) 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 “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations;”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims 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 “Claims 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 “surprise” that such important questions are asked in a blog post, circumventing public comments procedure. Please note, the Policy Department was not aware of this “call to action” either; therefore, it has not been included in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest (that’s 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’re 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-UGqCtANMvesgR6T9mn1lLtd2XqzQsSV8...
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
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council -- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
participants (12)
-
Byron Holland -
Giovanni Seppia -
HiroHOTTA -
Jian Zhang -
Jordan Carter -
Katrina Sataki -
Laura Margolis -
Margarita Valdés -
Nick Wenban-Smith -
Pablo Rodriguez -
Stephen Deerhake ＠ ASNIC -
Young-eum Lee