Subsequent Procedures: Request for reactions to letter by GAC Chair to SubPro PDP WG Co-Chairs relaying GAC input on the scope of upcoming SubPro public comment
Dear all, RE:*Letter from the GAC Chair, Manal Ismail, on behalf of GAC Membership: GAC Input on Scope of Upcoming New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Public Comment <https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/gac-input-on-scope-of-upcoming-new-gtlds-subsequent-procedures-pdp-wg-public-comment>* I had tabled for discussion at yesterday's (27 Nov) CPWG call the above-referenced correspondence from the GAC Chair to the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Co-Chairs which relayed GAC's input on the scope of the upcoming (additional) call for public comments to recommendations (whether preliminary or not) of the SubPro PDP WG. However, as I was otherwise detained, I was unable to make the said CPWG call and am now taking a remedial step to initiate the intended discussion. *Context* SubPro PDP WG is close to completing its review of public comments to its Initial Report of 2018, although some work is ongoing in respect of certain topics which have raised new ideas and are likely to lead to significant changes for subsequent procedures (IMO). Among others, one key question that *SubPro PDP WG is determining is, in basic terms, whether [A] to confine the additional call for public comments to preliminary recommendations (or questions) relating to those topics which SubPro PDP WG Leadership opines were not put out for Community input in earlier calls for public comments.* This decision is still pending and debate among members of the SubPro PDP WG on this matter is ongoing, *with an alternative being proposed, which is [B] to put, again in basic terms, a version of a "draft Final Report" with recommendations in its entirety, out for public comment*. In that scenario the document would not be "final" in form, of course. If I may abbreviate hereon, the rationale for [A] limiting the scope of what would be put out for public comment centres around the elements of (1) duplicity - we have already asked for community input on much of the WG's earlier work; (2) public comment fatigue; and (3) pressure to complete the WG's work within an already elongated timeline. While the arguments put forth for [B] putting a report in its entirety out for comment revolve around (1) keeping open opportunity for broad-based indirect participation by the Community; (2) enabling the Community to better understand and appreciate crucial connections between topics which would otherwise be effectively severed, ie. "allow Community to see the whole picture because changes to one part of the picture might affect perspectives to other parts of the picture"; (3) this is needed precursor work to better facilitate the goal of Community-wide accepted Final Report recommendations. *Request for Reactions* The afore-linked letter from the GAC Chair sets out the GAC's reaction to this question. I invite feedback, *especially from At-Large colleagues active on the SubPro PDP WG*, on whether At-Large/ALAC should also react to this question, and if yes, how so. Discussion on this list can be expected to be taken up at a subsequent CPWG call. Thank you, *Justine Chew* At-Large/ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures ALAC Member -----
The GAC notes the benefit of a comment period that includes all draft final recommendations. We do not know what final recommendations could affect end users. In my humble opinion and from what I hear in the SubPro PDP WG, ALAC should discuss giving support to the GAC note. And a small group research on issues that may affect end users. Kind regards Alberto De: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Enviado el: jueves, 28 de noviembre de 2019 3:56 Para: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Asunto: Subsequent Procedures: Request for reactions to letter by GAC Chair to SubPro PDP WG Co-Chairs relaying GAC input on the scope of upcoming SubPro public comment Dear all, RE: <https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/gac-input-on-scope-of-upcoming-new-gtl...> Letter from the GAC Chair, Manal Ismail, on behalf of GAC Membership: GAC Input on Scope of Upcoming New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Public Comment I had tabled for discussion at yesterday's (27 Nov) CPWG call the above-referenced correspondence from the GAC Chair to the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Co-Chairs which relayed GAC's input on the scope of the upcoming (additional) call for public comments to recommendations (whether preliminary or not) of the SubPro PDP WG. However, as I was otherwise detained, I was unable to make the said CPWG call and am now taking a remedial step to initiate the intended discussion. Context SubPro PDP WG is close to completing its review of public comments to its Initial Report of 2018, although some work is ongoing in respect of certain topics which have raised new ideas and are likely to lead to significant changes for subsequent procedures (IMO). Among others, one key question that SubPro PDP WG is determining is, in basic terms, whether [A] to confine the additional call for public comments to preliminary recommendations (or questions) relating to those topics which SubPro PDP WG Leadership opines were not put out for Community input in earlier calls for public comments. This decision is still pending and debate among members of the SubPro PDP WG on this matter is ongoing, with an alternative being proposed, which is [B] to put, again in basic terms, a version of a "draft Final Report" with recommendations in its entirety, out for public comment. In that scenario the document would not be "final" in form, of course. If I may abbreviate hereon, the rationale for [A] limiting the scope of what would be put out for public comment centres around the elements of (1) duplicity - we have already asked for community input on much of the WG's earlier work; (2) public comment fatigue; and (3) pressure to complete the WG's work within an already elongated timeline. While the arguments put forth for [B] putting a report in its entirety out for comment revolve around (1) keeping open opportunity for broad-based indirect participation by the Community; (2) enabling the Community to better understand and appreciate crucial connections between topics which would otherwise be effectively severed, ie. "allow Community to see the whole picture because changes to one part of the picture might affect perspectives to other parts of the picture"; (3) this is needed precursor work to better facilitate the goal of Community-wide accepted Final Report recommendations. Request for Reactions The afore-linked letter from the GAC Chair sets out the GAC's reaction to this question. I invite feedback, especially from At-Large colleagues active on the SubPro PDP WG, on whether At-Large/ALAC should also react to this question, and if yes, how so. Discussion on this list can be expected to be taken up at a subsequent CPWG call. Thank you, Justine Chew At-Large/ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures ALAC Member -----
All, Thank you for your input, Alberto. This matter was discussed by CPWG on its 4 Dec call whereupon *feedback was received to react positively to the GAC letter*. It was also decided that I should re-circulate my email (see below after Alberto's reply) for input for another 48 hours, and thereafter, I was to highlight the outcome to the ALAC for their onward action. Thus, if anyone has additional reactions to this issue, please let me have the same *by 7 Dec*. Thank you, *Justine Chew* At-Large/ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures ALAC Member ----- On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 21:30, <alberto@soto.net.ar> wrote:
The GAC notes the benefit of a comment period that includes all draft final recommendations.
We do not know what final recommendations could affect end users.
In my humble opinion and from what I hear in the SubPro PDP WG, ALAC should discuss giving support to the GAC note. And a small group research on issues that may affect end users.
Kind regards
Alberto
*De:* Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> *Enviado el:* jueves, 28 de noviembre de 2019 3:56 *Para:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Subsequent Procedures: Request for reactions to letter by GAC Chair to SubPro PDP WG Co-Chairs relaying GAC input on the scope of upcoming SubPro public comment
Dear all,
RE:*Letter from the GAC Chair, Manal Ismail, on behalf of GAC Membership: GAC Input on Scope of Upcoming New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Public Comment <https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/gac-input-on-scope-of-upcoming-new-gtlds-subsequent-procedures-pdp-wg-public-comment>*
I had tabled for discussion at yesterday's (27 Nov) CPWG call the above-referenced correspondence from the GAC Chair to the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Co-Chairs which relayed GAC's input on the scope of the upcoming (additional) call for public comments to recommendations (whether preliminary or not) of the SubPro PDP WG. However, as I was otherwise detained, I was unable to make the said CPWG call and am now taking a remedial step to initiate the intended discussion.
*Context*
SubPro PDP WG is close to completing its review of public comments to its Initial Report of 2018, although some work is ongoing in respect of certain topics which have raised new ideas and are likely to lead to significant changes for subsequent procedures (IMO).
Among others, one key question that *SubPro PDP WG is determining is, in basic terms, whether [A] to confine the additional call for public comments to preliminary recommendations (or questions) relating to those topics which SubPro PDP WG Leadership opines were not put out for Community input in earlier calls for public comments.* This decision is still pending and debate among members of the SubPro PDP WG on this matter is ongoing, *with an alternative being proposed, which is [B] to put, again in basic terms, a version of a "draft Final Report" with recommendations in its entirety, out for public comment*. In that scenario the document would not be "final" in form, of course.
If I may abbreviate hereon, the rationale for [A] limiting the scope of what would be put out for public comment centres around the elements of (1) duplicity - we have already asked for community input on much of the WG's earlier work; (2) public comment fatigue; and (3) pressure to complete the WG's work within an already elongated timeline.
While the arguments put forth for [B] putting a report in its entirety out for comment revolve around (1) keeping open opportunity for broad-based indirect participation by the Community; (2) enabling the Community to better understand and appreciate crucial connections between topics which would otherwise be effectively severed, ie. "allow Community to see the whole picture because changes to one part of the picture might affect perspectives to other parts of the picture"; (3) this is needed precursor work to better facilitate the goal of Community-wide accepted Final Report recommendations.
*Request for Reactions*
The afore-linked letter from the GAC Chair sets out the GAC's reaction to this question.
I invite feedback, *especially from At-Large colleagues active on the SubPro PDP WG*, on whether At-Large/ALAC should also react to this question, and if yes, how so.
Discussion on this list can be expected to be taken up at a subsequent CPWG call.
Thank you,
*Justine **Chew*
At-Large/ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures
ALAC Member
-----
Dear Justine: I support the line that Alberto has suggested. There are several aspects pdf the likely PDP recommendations that should be open for discussion and comment by GAC members and At Large. The multistakeholder composition of the PDP and WT5 does not yet take into consideration either the public interest or the specific issue of individual users’ interests. I would be glad to contribute to drafting related proposals, if asked.- Regards Christopher PS: As most colleagues will know, I was a member of GAC 1998-2002 and GAC Secretary 2002-2005, when I retired. I consider that it is extremely important that GAC and At Large converge on a mutually supportive concept of the public interest in ICANN.
On 4 Dec 2019, at 22:49, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
Thank you for your input, Alberto.
This matter was discussed by CPWG on its 4 Dec call whereupon feedback was received to react positively to the GAC letter.
It was also decided that I should re-circulate my email (see below after Alberto's reply) for input for another 48 hours, and thereafter, I was to highlight the outcome to the ALAC for their onward action.
Thus, if anyone has additional reactions to this issue, please let me have the same by 7 Dec.
Thank you,
Justine Chew At-Large/ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures ALAC Member -----
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 21:30, <alberto@soto.net.ar <mailto:alberto@soto.net.ar>> wrote: The GAC notes the benefit of a comment period that includes all draft final recommendations.
We do not know what final recommendations could affect end users.
In my humble opinion and from what I hear in the SubPro PDP WG, ALAC should discuss giving support to the GAC note. And a small group research on issues that may affect end users.
Kind regards
Alberto
De: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> Enviado el: jueves, 28 de noviembre de 2019 3:56 Para: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Asunto: Subsequent Procedures: Request for reactions to letter by GAC Chair to SubPro PDP WG Co-Chairs relaying GAC input on the scope of upcoming SubPro public comment
Dear all,
RE:Letter from the GAC Chair, Manal Ismail, on behalf of GAC Membership: GAC Input on Scope of Upcoming New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Public Comment <https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/gac-input-on-scope-of-upcoming-new-gtl...>
I had tabled for discussion at yesterday's (27 Nov) CPWG call the above-referenced correspondence from the GAC Chair to the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Co-Chairs which relayed GAC's input on the scope of the upcoming (additional) call for public comments to recommendations (whether preliminary or not) of the SubPro PDP WG. However, as I was otherwise detained, I was unable to make the said CPWG call and am now taking a remedial step to initiate the intended discussion.
Context
SubPro PDP WG is close to completing its review of public comments to its Initial Report of 2018, although some work is ongoing in respect of certain topics which have raised new ideas and are likely to lead to significant changes for subsequent procedures (IMO).
Among others, one key question that SubPro PDP WG is determining is, in basic terms, whether [A] to confine the additional call for public comments to preliminary recommendations (or questions) relating to those topics which SubPro PDP WG Leadership opines were not put out for Community input in earlier calls for public comments. This decision is still pending and debate among members of the SubPro PDP WG on this matter is ongoing, with an alternative being proposed, which is [B] to put, again in basic terms, a version of a "draft Final Report" with recommendations in its entirety, out for public comment. In that scenario the document would not be "final" in form, of course.
If I may abbreviate hereon, the rationale for [A] limiting the scope of what would be put out for public comment centres around the elements of (1) duplicity - we have already asked for community input on much of the WG's earlier work; (2) public comment fatigue; and (3) pressure to complete the WG's work within an already elongated timeline.
While the arguments put forth for [B] putting a report in its entirety out for comment revolve around (1) keeping open opportunity for broad-based indirect participation by the Community; (2) enabling the Community to better understand and appreciate crucial connections between topics which would otherwise be effectively severed, ie. "allow Community to see the whole picture because changes to one part of the picture might affect perspectives to other parts of the picture"; (3) this is needed precursor work to better facilitate the goal of Community-wide accepted Final Report recommendations.
Request for Reactions
The afore-linked letter from the GAC Chair sets out the GAC's reaction to this question.
I invite feedback, especially from At-Large colleagues active on the SubPro PDP WG, on whether At-Large/ALAC should also react to this question, and if yes, how so.
Discussion on this list can be expected to be taken up at a subsequent CPWG call.
Thank you,
Justine Chew
At-Large/ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures
ALAC Member
-----
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (3)
-
alberto＠soto.net.ar -
Justine Chew -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu