Issue with CPWG handling of comments
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
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.
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 tocpwg-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.
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<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.
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<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.
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 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBbIg>, the concept of an At-Large Capacity Development agenda <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hnv5EnPAOu99Narg13yTc1kOjozDArg_m6g_KQyX...> to help deliver the capacity building elements to the ALAC FY2026 Strategic Priorities <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/VQCIG>. 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 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/SQB6JQ>, 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 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hnv5EnPAOu99Narg13yTc1kOjozDArg_m6g_KQyX...>, 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.
Hello all, there is an advance notice in "upcoming Public Comment Proceedings" section which should have been updated with the information from https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/upcoming-proceedings In the past, we have also had the ability for staff in charge of a public comment to arrange a short 15 minute introduction/summary to a topic if there was a need for it. I believe these options stand. Kindest regards, Olivier On 03/12/2025 19:53, Jonathan Zuck via CPWG wrote:
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 tocpwg-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.
Hello All, The reviewers can always first have a few slides introducing the topic before they provide the rational on whether to proceed with a public comment or not. So the google doc. can be split into two main parts. The first part introduces the topic and the second part includes only the points that ALAC/At-Large will comment on. I believe Alan has also previously made a similar suggestion. Kindest regards Hadia Elminiawi From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 04 December 2025 12:20 To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>; avri doria <avri@doria.org>; cpwg@icann.org Subject: [External] [CPWG] Re: Issue with CPWG handling of comments Hello all, there is an advance notice in "upcoming Public Comment Proceedings" section which should have been updated with the information from https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/upcoming-proceedings In the past, we have also had the ability for staff in charge of a public comment to arrange a short 15 minute introduction/summary to a topic if there was a need for it. I believe these options stand. Kindest regards, Olivier On 03/12/2025 19:53, Jonathan Zuck via CPWG wrote: 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><mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 at 2:32 PM To: cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org><mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.
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.
In the case of ongoing PDPs and IRTs, staff always contact the ALAC/At-Large representatives to such PDPs to ask if they have anything to report or discuss. It is incumbent on those representatives to take up the mantel to explain and discuss the work of their WGs with CPWG or OFBWG, *as the work is being undertaken* and not near the end of a PDP or when a report has gone out for public comment. In the event circumstances do not permit that during scheduled CPWG or OFBWG calls, then some other arrangements could be contemplated. But, the reality is we are all volunteers so we may not always have the benefit of such briefings or discussions on a timely basis or with the highest possible clarity. Kind regards, Justine On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 at 19:02, 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.
Hi, Thanks for the suggestion. Is this something I could expect those who were the ALAC reps to the PDP to be able to give the presentation for? I hope so. As for timing the Reps know best when things are starting to wrap up, and of course they know all of he points of concern, hopefully having also brought them to the CPWG at the appropriate times, so that could be a good match for task. Also, I would think if PDP Reps are automatically part of the review team for anything they were the ALAC rep for. Assuming they would have already read the final report as part of their Rep responsibility, they could help guide the other reviewers through the material. thanks avri On 12/4/2025 06:01, DANIEL NANGHAKA 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 tocpwg-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.
Dear Avri and colleagues, Thank you for the clarification. From my perspective, the key element is that the PDP ALAC representatives, having followed the process throughout, are naturally positioned to brief the CPWG and support the review phase given their existing familiarity with the final report and points of concern. Kind regards, Chubasco “Simple, genuine goodness is the best capital to found the business of this life upon. It lasts when fame and money fail, and is the only riches we can take out of this world with us.” On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 3:19 AM avri doria via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the suggestion.
Is this something I could expect those who were the ALAC reps to the PDP to be able to give the presentation for? I hope so.
As for timing the Reps know best when things are starting to wrap up, and of course they know all of he points of concern, hopefully having also brought them to the CPWG at the appropriate times, so that could be a good match for task.
Also, I would think if PDP Reps are automatically part of the review team for anything they were the ALAC rep for. Assuming they would have already read the final report as part of their Rep responsibility, they could help guide the other reviewers through the material.
thanks
avri
On 12/4/2025 06:01, DANIEL NANGHAKA 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.
Hi everyone Great discussion on something that is so important to At-Large - our credibility when it comes to recommendations to the Board about policy issues of concern to end-users. * As Olivier pointed out - staff provide an introductory statement that clearly details the specific expectations of the public comment * Justine has explained that At-Large usually has representatives on the related pdps already be discussing the issues, and these representatives play a critical role as members of the *small teams* which may also consist of other At-Large members who already have a strong interest in and knowledge of that issue, to provide the supporting information and relevant updates to the CPWG. They are also usually the penholders of the submission. . * Therefore, as Alan explains, it is important for anyone who wants to contribute to an At-Large statement, to take advantage of all these informational opportunities. Time is usually limited so that it behoves those who are interested enough, to get themselves up to speed on the issue of interest if they want to contribute to a submission. However, the contribution must be specific and relevant. As Alan points out, it will be ignored if the important contributions are clouded by any peripherals. Maureen On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 5:40 AM Chubasco Diranga via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Avri and colleagues,
Thank you for the clarification. From my perspective, the key element is that the PDP ALAC representatives, having followed the process throughout, are naturally positioned to brief the CPWG and support the review phase given their existing familiarity with the final report and points of concern.
Kind regards,
Chubasco “Simple, genuine goodness is the best capital to found the business of this life upon. It lasts when fame and money fail, and is the only riches we can take out of this world with us.”
On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 3:19 AM avri doria via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the suggestion.
Is this something I could expect those who were the ALAC reps to the PDP to be able to give the presentation for? I hope so.
As for timing the Reps know best when things are starting to wrap up, and of course they know all of he points of concern, hopefully having also brought them to the CPWG at the appropriate times, so that could be a good match for task.
Also, I would think if PDP Reps are automatically part of the review team for anything they were the ALAC rep for. Assuming they would have already read the final report as part of their Rep responsibility, they could help guide the other reviewers through the material.
thanks
avri
On 12/4/2025 06:01, DANIEL NANGHAKA 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi, In terms of calling on staff to explain things: - While this is always possible, they are wonderful people who know a lot, they are also generally rather overloaded so we need to be careful to remember that every request to Staff cost some resources. I therefore recommend we try to do it as sparingly as possible. - Considering also that they have written the documentation that needs to be reviewed, we should probably wait to invite them until we have done our own due difference and have read the material and have specific questions. - As staff, who are not allowed to be stakeholders and thus may not take a stakeholder view of the material, we need to be careful about putting them in the awkward position of having to see things from the end user point of view, when that is a view they are not allowed to have: they need to maintain an appropriately ICANN Corporate view of the materials and we should be careful about putting then in bad situations. For this reason, I believe that staff, though always helpful, cannot be relied on for the solution to the problem of how to form AL's comments, but rather think they have to come from the AL and ALAC community itself. avri On 12/4/2025 11:15, Maureen Hilyard via CPWG wrote:
Hi everyone Great discussion on something that is so important to At-Large - our credibility when it comes to recommendations to the Board about policy issues of concern to end-users.
* As Olivier pointed out - staff provide an introductory statement that clearly details the specific expectations of the public comment * Justine has explained that At-Large usually has representatives on the related pdps already be discussing the issues, and these representatives play a critical role as members of the *small teams* which may also consist of other At-Large members who already have a strong interest in and knowledge of that issue, to provide the supporting information and relevant updates to the CPWG. They are also usually the penholders of the submission. . * Therefore, as Alan explains, it is important for anyone who wants to contribute to an At-Large statement, to take advantage of all these informational opportunities. Time is usually limited so that it behoves those who are interested enough, to get themselves up to speed on the issue of interest if they want to contribute to a submission. However, the contribution must be specific and relevant. As Alan points out, it will be ignored if the important contributions are clouded by any peripherals.
Maureen
On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 5:40 AM Chubasco Diranga via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Avri and colleagues,
Thank you for the clarification. From my perspective, the key element is that the PDP ALAC representatives, having followed the process throughout, are naturally positioned to brief the CPWG and support the review phase given their existing familiarity with the final report and points of concern.
Kind regards,
Chubasco
“Simple, genuine goodness is the best capital to found the business of this life upon. It lasts when fame and money fail, and is the only riches we can take out of this world with us.”
On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 3:19 AM avri doria via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the suggestion.
Is this something I could expect those who were the ALAC reps to the PDP to be able to give the presentation for? I hope so.
As for timing the Reps know best when things are starting to wrap up, and of course they know all of he points of concern, hopefully having also brought them to the CPWG at the appropriate times, so that could be a good match for task.
Also, I would think if PDP Reps are automatically part of the review team for anything they were the ALAC rep for. Assuming they would have already read the final report as part of their Rep responsibility, they could help guide the other reviewers through the material.
thanks
avri
On 12/4/2025 06:01, DANIEL NANGHAKA 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 tocpwg-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.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list --cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tocpwg-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.
Hi Avri, Thank you for this clarification — your suggestions make very good sense. I agree that the ALAC PDP representatives are naturally best positioned to lead the learning phase, since they already carry the history, context, and key points of concern from the PDP process. Having them facilitate the presentations would not only improve accuracy, but also ensure continuity between PDP participation and CPWG review. I also support the idea that PDP reps should automatically form part of the review teams for items they have followed. This would provide a strong anchor for the group and help newer reviewers focus on the critical issues more quickly and effectively. If structured well, this approach could significantly reduce late-stage confusion and strengthen the quality and clarity of our final comments. I think it’s a practical and implementable improvement worth trying in an upcoming cycle. Many thanks, Daniel ᐧ On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 at 18:19, avri doria <avri@doria.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the suggestion.
Is this something I could expect those who were the ALAC reps to the PDP to be able to give the presentation for? I hope so.
As for timing the Reps know best when things are starting to wrap up, and of course they know all of he points of concern, hopefully having also brought them to the CPWG at the appropriate times, so that could be a good match for task.
Also, I would think if PDP Reps are automatically part of the review team for anything they were the ALAC rep for. Assuming they would have already read the final report as part of their Rep responsibility, they could help guide the other reviewers through the material.
thanks
avri
On 12/4/2025 06:01, DANIEL NANGHAKA 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.
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.
Thanks for all of the comments. Based on some of them, I apparently was not sufficiently clear. There are potentially three discrete steps to reaching the point where CPWG recommends a comment to the ALAC. 1. The people who volunteer need to be up to speed on the subject. In an ideal world, that should already be the case with at least some of the volunteers and hopefully the lead ones. In some cases, reading the documents presented with the comment may provide the needed background. In other cases, they may not suffice. 2. In preparation for presenting a potential comment, the CPWG may need to be briefed on the subject CPWG participants can make informed decisions on the comments being discussed. Understanding the impact on users is part of this, as that may be a consideration in deciding whether a comment is warranted. The briefing aspects of this step can be done by the comment volunteers, staff, or other At-Large participants. 3. If a comment is warranted, it needs to be drafted, and then discussed within the CPWG to finalize it. Currently there is a process by which the proposed comment is first discussed in bullet-mode form. This may or may not be warranted based on the complexity of the issue, but it is good practice if the time-line allows. My original concern is that the presentation of item 2 to the CPWG seems to be melded into the drafting of the comment. The comment itself is targetted at some other group in ICANN who do not need the background nor the user-impact analysis. Aspects of the user impact or the background leading to the comment MAY be necessary in the comment if understanding those is critical to explaining why the comment should be adopted by the target team. But in general, all of 2 is background for the CPWG and not an integral part of the comment. My concern is that producing long convoluted comments where the actual recommendations are unclear, or buried in extraneous text can only lead to our comments not being accepted and implemented. Alan On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 10:33 AM Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> wrote:
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
participants (12)
-
Alan Greenberg -
avri doria -
Carlton Samuels -
Chubasco Diranga -
DANIEL NANGHAKA -
Eunice Alejandra Pérez Coello -
gopal -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
Jonathan Zuck -
Justine Chew -
Maureen Hilyard -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond