Dear Alan, all,

Thank you for bringing this issue up and for the subsequent comments.

Hopefully all of you know, by now, that the ALAC Leadership Team recently proposed and introduced at the last ALAC Monthly Call, the concept of an At-Large Capacity Development agenda to help deliver the capacity building elements to the ALAC FY2026 Strategic Priorities.

As part of this agenda, we ran the At-Large Briefing Session #1: Informed Consensus: An Approach to At-Large Position Development on Tue 2 Dec, and will be running Session #2 on Thu 4 Dec at 14:00 UTC.

If you attended Session #1, then thank you for your participation! And if you didn't, we invite you to join Session #2.

Session #2 on Thursday, 04 December 2025 at 14:00 UTC
Agenda wiki: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCYJQ
Pre-registration link: https://icann.zoom.us/meeting/register/QV1y7GZPSkeag3PKw4rOYQ


At Session #1, the idea of a follow up workshop of some kind was brought up. I (personally) think this is something we can consider doing - as a way to apply the theory of "Informed Consensus" to the practice of the same, while discussing some guidance on the mechanics of how a small team of shepherd/reviews/penholders could undertake their work to developing, presenting bullet points, and eventually a draft statement for consideration, should a recommendation for a statement be accepted by CPWG/OFBWG (as the case may be).

Should folks be supportive of such a workshop, then I will be happy to look into one (or several) with my colleagues on the ALT/ALAC.

And to add another dimension of this train of thought, as set out in the said  At-Large Capacity Development agenda, we will be looking into organizing in 2026, some fireside chats around what participating in ICANN working groups entails from the ALAC/At-Large perspective. 

Kind regards,
Justine


On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 at 08:15, gopal via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Nice point to ponder.

This is an evergreen debate: Conclusion First OR Explanation First

There may bot be a formula that will fit all purposes.

However, as Zuck points out, we should have someone from a pertinent PDP / Working Group / Series of Deliberations in the Panel of Reviewers and / or Pen Holders. It is nice if they can speak as well.

Rationale: 

We should lend credence first more than clarity in our deliberations. Clarity in the asynchronous way of working emerges after some iterations. The number of iterations is determined by the time on hand i.e deadlines.

Gopal T V
0 9840121302
https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545
https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. T V Gopal
Retired Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering &
Retired Director, Centre for Applied Research in Indic Technologies [CARIT]
College of Engineering, Guindy Campus
Anna University
Chennai - 600 025, INDIA
Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340
       (Res) 24454753
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Sent: 04 December 2025 01:23
To: avri doria <avri@doria.org>; cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org>
Subject: [CPWG] Re: Issue with CPWG handling of comments
 
We’ve made an attempt at that, in the past. It can be difficult to now when something is going to go for public comment. Obviously, the ideal is that we have a volunteer participating in the PDP who has been educating us on the issues along the way so that we’re not starting from scratch, when the request for comment goes out.

From: avri doria via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 at 2:32 PM
To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org>
Subject: [CPWG] Re: Issue with CPWG handling of comments

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.