I am reading these contributions and it just seems like we are regressing, starting at the wrong place. The bylaws crowns the At-Large with a mechanism for formal ALAC Advice to the Board on any matter whatsoever at any time. It does not commit us to a coincident action emanating from anywhere or any other structure in the community. The idea of embedding At-Large adherents in the PDP was tightly coupled to our zeal to transform our advisory role from reactive commentary to proactive guidance and to embed the public interest in policy design. Our active participation is principally to win friends and influence people to our views. It means we should be competently prepared for arguments in context. But these are grounded on a standing set of end-user principles for each policy domain connected to the issues of our interest in the DNS; access, security, resilience, privacy, consumer trust, competition, transparency, that sort of thing. We were committed to the view that the proactive model for adoption was to go principle first and position forward; we go into the PDP knowing where we want to land. We would measure the PDP output against what best serves the global Internet end user as best as we can discern and, especially the harms we would wish to avoid. And we should be able to articulate, seek and identify the inclusion of de minimis public interest conditions. In the end, the ALAC’s role on publication of the PDP report is to develop and publish a comment that fully supports the positions in the PDP if it is aligned with our principles, partially support and offer amendments or wholly reject if considered misaligned or harmful. It is the way we achieve clarity of purpose; with clear consistent articulation of the principles. This ensures consistency across years and policy cycles. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 at 06:02, DANIEL NANGHAKA via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Avri and CPWG colleagues,
Thank you, Avri, for raising this so clearly. I agree that we are often engaging too late in the learning process—by the time we reach drafting, we are still absorbing the issues rather than refining positions. This makes it difficult to produce crisp, actionable comments within the available time.
One practical step may be to introduce a lightweight “learning phase” earlier in the PDP lifecycle, where short briefings or curated materials are shared before formal drafting begins. This could also help identify and line up potential reviewers in advance, rather than during the public comment window when time is already constrained.
While scheduling will remain a challenge, having even a modest structure around early understanding could significantly strengthen the quality and confidence of our final submissions. I believe this is worth exploring as part of improving our internal process.
Kind regards, Daniel
ᐧ
On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 at 22:32, avri doria via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi,
Good points, We really should have been educated before we ever get to the comment.
Not sure how we fit it all in, but worth thinking about. In some sense if we are following the PDPs, than by the time the PDP ends and is prepping the final report, we should be in learning mode. Figuring out how to schedule that is hard. It also may mean lining up review teams earlier, before the review is posted.
thanks
avri
On 12/3/2025 14:10, Eunice Alejandra Pérez Coello via CPWG wrote:
Thank you, Alan, for your observations. I find your recommendation very helpful in improving how we structure our presentations and analyses within the CPWG. I agree that, whenever possible, having a clearer distinction between background explanation and the formulation of our proposed comments can support greater clarity and make our final positions more actionable for ICANN.
At the same time, I also recognize that depending on the type of Public Comment, some consultations naturally require more technical context in order to appropriately assess the elements being requested. Still, your suggestion is very valuable for strengthening our methodological consistency, and I will definitely keep it in mind for future drafting efforts.
Thank you again for your contribution and for encouraging us to continually improve our process.
Eunice
El mié, 3 dic 2025 a las 9:33, Alan Greenberg via CPWG (<cpwg@icann.org>) escribió:
I see a pattern with how we are handling things that is leading to the lack of clarity in proposed statements and in fact the inability to proceed with some comments.
Specifically, I see a very significant blurring of the need to provide a tutorial on the subject matter to ensure that the CPWG understands the issues, and the formulation of the comments to be presented.
Going forward, I would suggest that these two "sections" of the analysis be more CLEARLY delineated in what is being presented. This would allow actual comments being made to be clear and concise, and thus actionable by the target audience.
Alan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.