HIT Topics for Marrakech
Hi everyone Thank you all for the contributions and discussions that arose out of this request for topics for the HIT/CC sessions in Marrakech. 1. The first issue was the consolidated approach that was proposed by Keith and there were four areas that were suggested and accepted by 8 respondents initially 2. Then after Sebastian suggested DoH there were 15 respondents who agreed to include DoH adding their reasons to Sebastian's "because it is important to end-users and important to keep the Internet open to all". So from the email discussions, the suggestions are: 1. DOH 2. Future of Multistakeholder Model of Governance 3. Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations 4. UA 5. Combined EPDP2, GDPR, Who is accuracy and Unified Access Model Something to discuss in the CPWG meeting is that if the SO-ACs decide on only 4 sessions, which one would you remove? Also we will need talking points on their final list. Maureen
Eliminate #3: Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations -ed On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 12:12 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone
Thank you all for the contributions and discussions that arose out of this request for topics for the HIT/CC sessions in Marrakech.
1. The first issue was the consolidated approach that was proposed by Keith and there were four areas that were suggested and accepted by 8 respondents initially
2. Then after Sebastian suggested DoH there were 15 respondents who agreed to include DoH adding their reasons to Sebastian's "because it is important to end-users and important to keep the Internet open to all".
So from the email discussions, the suggestions are: 1. DOH 2. Future of Multistakeholder Model of Governance 3. Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations 4. UA 5. Combined EPDP2, GDPR, Who is accuracy and Unified Access Model
Something to discuss in the CPWG meeting is that if the SO-ACs decide on only 4 sessions, which one would you remove? Also we will need talking points on their final list.
Maureen
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
I’m with Ed - #3 Holly
On May 9, 2019, at 12:48 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
Eliminate #3: Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations
-ed
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 12:12 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi everyone
Thank you all for the contributions and discussions that arose out of this request for topics for the HIT/CC sessions in Marrakech.
1. The first issue was the consolidated approach that was proposed by Keith and there were four areas that were suggested and accepted by 8 respondents initially
2. Then after Sebastian suggested DoH there were 15 respondents who agreed to include DoH adding their reasons to Sebastian's "because it is important to end-users and important to keep the Internet open to all".
So from the email discussions, the suggestions are: 1. DOH 2. Future of Multistakeholder Model of Governance 3. Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations 4. UA 5. Combined EPDP2, GDPR, Who is accuracy and Unified Access Model
Something to discuss in the CPWG meeting is that if the SO-ACs decide on only 4 sessions, which one would you remove? Also we will need talking points on their final list.
Maureen
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
-- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Lets work on a video summary of the key issues in Marrakesh. We have already did a video with Marita Moll and Brian Cute on Multistakeholderism Glenn McKnight NARALO Secretariat mcknight.glenn@gmail.com http://toronto.ieee.ca/ IEEE Toronto SIGHT Chair glenn.mcknight@ieee.org skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight 289-830 6259 . On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 8:03 PM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I’m with Ed - #3
Holly
On May 9, 2019, at 12:48 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
Eliminate #3: Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations
-ed
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 12:12 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone
Thank you all for the contributions and discussions that arose out of this request for topics for the HIT/CC sessions in Marrakech.
1. The first issue was the consolidated approach that was proposed by Keith and there were four areas that were suggested and accepted by 8 respondents initially
2. Then after Sebastian suggested DoH there were 15 respondents who agreed to include DoH adding their reasons to Sebastian's "because it is important to end-users and important to keep the Internet open to all".
So from the email discussions, the suggestions are: 1. DOH 2. Future of Multistakeholder Model of Governance 3. Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations 4. UA 5. Combined EPDP2, GDPR, Who is accuracy and Unified Access Model
Something to discuss in the CPWG meeting is that if the SO-ACs decide on only 4 sessions, which one would you remove? Also we will need talking points on their final list.
Maureen
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
But, doesn't the follow-up by the Board on its reaction to the CCTRT fall under 3. Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations? Justine ----- On Thu, 9 May 2019, 08:03 Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I’m with Ed - #3
Holly
On May 9, 2019, at 12:48 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
Eliminate #3: Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations
-ed
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 12:12 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone
Thank you all for the contributions and discussions that arose out of this request for topics for the HIT/CC sessions in Marrakech.
1. The first issue was the consolidated approach that was proposed by Keith and there were four areas that were suggested and accepted by 8 respondents initially
2. Then after Sebastian suggested DoH there were 15 respondents who agreed to include DoH adding their reasons to Sebastian's "because it is important to end-users and important to keep the Internet open to all".
So from the email discussions, the suggestions are: 1. DOH 2. Future of Multistakeholder Model of Governance 3. Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations 4. UA 5. Combined EPDP2, GDPR, Who is accuracy and Unified Access Model
Something to discuss in the CPWG meeting is that if the SO-ACs decide on only 4 sessions, which one would you remove? Also we will need talking points on their final list.
Maureen
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
I am afraid I am an apology for this CPWG meeting - it’s too close to the ATLAS III meeting (meaning REALLY late evening Sydney time, then REALLY early Sydney time) - so I’ll check the transcript later And staff, please a dial out for the ATLAS III meeting Thanks Holly
On May 9, 2019, at 2:44 PM, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
But, doesn't the follow-up by the Board on its reaction to the CCTRT fall under 3. Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations?
Justine -----
On Thu, 9 May 2019, 08:03 Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: I’m with Ed - #3
Holly
On May 9, 2019, at 12:48 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com <mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> wrote:
Eliminate #3: Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations
-ed
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 12:12 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi everyone
Thank you all for the contributions and discussions that arose out of this request for topics for the HIT/CC sessions in Marrakech.
1. The first issue was the consolidated approach that was proposed by Keith and there were four areas that were suggested and accepted by 8 respondents initially
2. Then after Sebastian suggested DoH there were 15 respondents who agreed to include DoH adding their reasons to Sebastian's "because it is important to end-users and important to keep the Internet open to all".
So from the email discussions, the suggestions are: 1. DOH 2. Future of Multistakeholder Model of Governance 3. Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations 4. UA 5. Combined EPDP2, GDPR, Who is accuracy and Unified Access Model
Something to discuss in the CPWG meeting is that if the SO-ACs decide on only 4 sessions, which one would you remove? Also we will need talking points on their final list.
Maureen
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
-- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
I would remove 3. Regards, Wale On Wed, 8 May 2019, 05:12 Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone
Thank you all for the contributions and discussions that arose out of this request for topics for the HIT/CC sessions in Marrakech.
1. The first issue was the consolidated approach that was proposed by Keith and there were four areas that were suggested and accepted by 8 respondents initially
2. Then after Sebastian suggested DoH there were 15 respondents who agreed to include DoH adding their reasons to Sebastian's "because it is important to end-users and important to keep the Internet open to all".
So from the email discussions, the suggestions are: 1. DOH 2. Future of Multistakeholder Model of Governance 3. Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations 4. UA 5. Combined EPDP2, GDPR, Who is accuracy and Unified Access Model
Something to discuss in the CPWG meeting is that if the SO-ACs decide on only 4 sessions, which one would you remove? Also we will need talking points on their final list.
Maureen
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
I would say NOT #3 Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and implementation because UNLESS the goal for topic has changed substantially (and if someone can confirm this or otherwise) this topic has been suggested by ICANN Org in response to the request made by Jonathan Zuck at ICANN 64 in respect of the Board's reaction to the CCTRT Final Report recommendations. I think we should back Jonathan up on this, and it's an important CC topic. See: https://icann.wufoo.com/reports/icann65-proposed-topics I suspect 1. DoH may not be popular across all communities and if this is the case, then I will still hope that At-Large can hold a session of some kind for purposes of identifying implications to end-users. I also note that the conversation is also moving onto DoQ (DNS over Quic)! Justine ----- On Thu, 9 May 2019, 17:20 Olawale Bakare, <wales.baky@gmail.com> wrote:
I would remove 3.
Regards, Wale
On Wed, 8 May 2019, 05:12 Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone
Thank you all for the contributions and discussions that arose out of this request for topics for the HIT/CC sessions in Marrakech.
1. The first issue was the consolidated approach that was proposed by Keith and there were four areas that were suggested and accepted by 8 respondents initially
2. Then after Sebastian suggested DoH there were 15 respondents who agreed to include DoH adding their reasons to Sebastian's "because it is important to end-users and important to keep the Internet open to all".
So from the email discussions, the suggestions are: 1. DOH 2. Future of Multistakeholder Model of Governance 3. Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations 4. UA 5. Combined EPDP2, GDPR, Who is accuracy and Unified Access Model
Something to discuss in the CPWG meeting is that if the SO-ACs decide on only 4 sessions, which one would you remove? Also we will need talking points on their final list.
Maureen
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Dear Justine, On 09/05/2019 14:27, Justine Chew wrote:
I would say NOT #3 Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and implementation because UNLESS the goal for topic has changed substantially (and if someone can confirm this or otherwise) this topic has been suggested by ICANN Org in response to the request made by Jonathan Zuck at ICANN 64 in respect of the Board's reaction to the CCTRT Final Report recommendations. I think we should back Jonathan up on this, and it's an important CC topic.
But doesn't this do double duty with the policy commenting on: https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg ? Kindest regards, Olivier
Some good questions to get stuck into with that PC - Do you/your organization agree with the proposed list of issues that should form the focus of the streamlining process? If not, with which do you disagree and what would you like to add? - Do you/your organization agree with the proposed underlying principles that should guide the solutions? If not, with which do you disagree and what would you like to add? - Do you/your organization agree with the community role in the streamlining process? If not, what would you propose? - Do you/your organization agree with the proposed high-level timeline? If not, what would you propose? On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:09 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Justine,
On 09/05/2019 14:27, Justine Chew wrote:
I would say NOT #3 Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and implementation because UNLESS the goal for topic has changed substantially (and if someone can confirm this or otherwise) this topic has been suggested by ICANN Org in response to the request made by Jonathan Zuck at ICANN 64 in respect of the Board's reaction to the CCTRT Final Report recommendations. I think we should back Jonathan up on this, and it's an important CC topic.
But doesn't this do double duty with the policy commenting on: https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg ? Kindest regards,
Olivier
Dear Olivier, In answer to your question "*But doesn't this do double duty with the policy commenting on: https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg <https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg>*", my answer is this public comment you pointed out focuses on streamlining organisational reviews. While related, it does not seem to me to place emphasis on implementation. The session I'm referring to is the one proposed by Theresa Swinehart at https://icann.wufoo.com/reports/icann65-proposed-topics (no. 9): which reads: *HIT: Enhance effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and their implementation * Status/Current Notes: HIT Under Review Background//Importance/Timelines: In Kobe, the CCT review leadership requested that the ICANN org organize a session in Marrakesh to discuss ways in which the specific review teams, the Board and the ICANN org can work more productively toward useful outcomes from Specific Reviews. Given the importance of specific reviews as an accountability measure, and with all specific reviews currently in various stages of work and implementation, ICANN65 offers a timely opportunity for a productive discussion, leading to concrete improvements. Specific Reviews are conducted by community-led teams, and under the new Bylaws, the ICANN community has new powers and responsibilities related to this work. Session Goals and Expected Outcomes: *Broad community discussion on three topics of importance: 1) how to improve costing and implementation of review recommendations, 2) how to develop a process to prioritize and establish sustainable cadence of implementations across various reviews, and **3) the establishment of a protocol for handling specific review recommendations.* It is intended that a robust and broadly representative discussion *will inform next steps and the specific review work currently underway (RDS-WHOIS2, SSR2 and ATRT3*) *as well as the implementation of CCT recommendations*. *Community input will also guide implementation of WS2, inform the overall effort of streamlining specific reviews. Community input will inform potential changes to the operating standards for specific reviews.* So in fact, Theresa's proposed session could inform/help shape At-Large/ALAC's policy positions for the public comment you pointed to, which closes after ICANN65. Thanks, Justine ----- On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 05:05, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Some good questions to get stuck into with that PC
- Do you/your organization agree with the proposed list of issues that should form the focus of the streamlining process? If not, with which do you disagree and what would you like to add? - Do you/your organization agree with the proposed underlying principles that should guide the solutions? If not, with which do you disagree and what would you like to add? - Do you/your organization agree with the community role in the streamlining process? If not, what would you propose? - Do you/your organization agree with the proposed high-level timeline? If not, what would you propose?
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:09 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Justine,
On 09/05/2019 14:27, Justine Chew wrote:
I would say NOT #3 Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and implementation because UNLESS the goal for topic has changed substantially (and if someone can confirm this or otherwise) this topic has been suggested by ICANN Org in response to the request made by Jonathan Zuck at ICANN 64 in respect of the Board's reaction to the CCTRT Final Report recommendations. I think we should back Jonathan up on this, and it's an important CC topic.
But doesn't this do double duty with the policy commenting on: https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg ? Kindest regards,
Olivier
I agree - surprisingly - with both Justine and Olivier. If you look at the Issues Page (the link one is instructed to use to provide comments), and the many comments quoted made about the challenges in participating - many of which we have made ( time constraints, same people commenting, complexity of issues - pages that feel like someone has been listening in on ALAC conversations) then we need a process to respond to this, and so far, no comments have been made either on the ALAC policy page or the Issues Page. So yes, this is ALAC’s opportunity both to set out our myriad difficulties in responding - and constructive suggestions. We can do this on our own policy page - and then AS ALAC - add comments to the Issues Page (as we are instructed to do), or individuals can go straight to the Issues Page and make their own comments. Either way, this is a issue ALAC has been talking about for ages and we need to at least agree on how to respond. So maybe we need to schedule something in Marrakech where we can coordinate a response to the issue - or at least respond via the policy page. Holly
On May 11, 2019, at 6:09 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Justine,
On 09/05/2019 14:27, Justine Chew wrote:
I would say NOT #3 Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and implementation because UNLESS the goal for topic has changed substantially (and if someone can confirm this or otherwise) this topic has been suggested by ICANN Org in response to the request made by Jonathan Zuck at ICANN 64 in respect of the Board's reaction to the CCTRT Final Report recommendations. I think we should back Jonathan up on this, and it's an important CC topic.
But doesn't this do double duty with the policy commenting on: https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg <https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg> ? Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
Then are you saying that one of the policy sessions we have in Marrakech should be to discuss and develop an ALAC statement for the public comment? On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:43 PM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I agree - surprisingly - with both Justine and Olivier.
If you look at the Issues Page (the link one is instructed to use to provide comments), and the many comments quoted made about the challenges in participating - many of which we have made ( time constraints, same people commenting, complexity of issues - pages that feel like someone has been listening in on ALAC conversations) then we need a process to respond to this, and so far, no comments have been made either on the ALAC policy page or the Issues Page. So yes, this is ALAC’s opportunity both to set out our myriad difficulties in responding - and constructive suggestions. We can do this on our own policy page - and then AS ALAC - add comments to the Issues Page (as we are instructed to do), or individuals can go straight to the Issues Page and make their own comments. Either way, this is a issue ALAC has been talking about for ages and we need to at least agree on how to respond. So maybe we need to schedule something in Marrakech where we can coordinate a response to the issue - or at least respond via the policy page.
Holly
On May 11, 2019, at 6:09 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Justine,
On 09/05/2019 14:27, Justine Chew wrote:
I would say NOT #3 Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and implementation because UNLESS the goal for topic has changed substantially (and if someone can confirm this or otherwise) this topic has been suggested by ICANN Org in response to the request made by Jonathan Zuck at ICANN 64 in respect of the Board's reaction to the CCTRT Final Report recommendations. I think we should back Jonathan up on this, and it's an important CC topic.
But doesn't this do double duty with the policy commenting on: https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg ? Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
Maybe the first step is to go back to Jonathan since this is his suggestion to ICANN Org. And maybe it isn’t an ICANN policy session - maybe in the first instance, it is a discussion by the CPWG on how to respond - and it may be that we gather all that we have said in the past into a coordinated response. Indeed, look at all the issues raised in ATLAS II - which are now listed as completed. But are they ongoing issues? There is no question that a weekly CPWG meeting is one of the ALAC responses on having coordinated policy discussions so that we can identify and respond to issues of concern to ALAC. Are there other things we should be doing/other things that others should be doing. The joint ALAC/NCSG meetings are another part of the answer - what else. So maybe 10 minutes on this at the next CPWG? Holly
On May 12, 2019, at 4:26 PM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Then are you saying that one of the policy sessions we have in Marrakech should be to discuss and develop an ALAC statement for the public comment?
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:43 PM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: I agree - surprisingly - with both Justine and Olivier.
If you look at the Issues Page (the link one is instructed to use to provide comments), and the many comments quoted made about the challenges in participating - many of which we have made ( time constraints, same people commenting, complexity of issues - pages that feel like someone has been listening in on ALAC conversations) then we need a process to respond to this, and so far, no comments have been made either on the ALAC policy page or the Issues Page. So yes, this is ALAC’s opportunity both to set out our myriad difficulties in responding - and constructive suggestions. We can do this on our own policy page - and then AS ALAC - add comments to the Issues Page (as we are instructed to do), or individuals can go straight to the Issues Page and make their own comments. Either way, this is a issue ALAC has been talking about for ages and we need to at least agree on how to respond. So maybe we need to schedule something in Marrakech where we can coordinate a response to the issue - or at least respond via the policy page.
Holly
On May 11, 2019, at 6:09 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Justine,
On 09/05/2019 14:27, Justine Chew wrote:
I would say NOT #3 Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and implementation because UNLESS the goal for topic has changed substantially (and if someone can confirm this or otherwise) this topic has been suggested by ICANN Org in response to the request made by Jonathan Zuck at ICANN 64 in respect of the Board's reaction to the CCTRT Final Report recommendations. I think we should back Jonathan up on this, and it's an important CC topic.
But doesn't this do double duty with the policy commenting on: https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg <https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg> ? Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>
Hi Holly Excellent ideas. I agree with you. Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith@jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein
On May 12, 2019, at 2:38 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Maybe the first step is to go back to Jonathan since this is his suggestion to ICANN Org. And maybe it isn’t an ICANN policy session - maybe in the first instance, it is a discussion by the CPWG on how to respond - and it may be that we gather all that we have said in the past into a coordinated response.
Indeed, look at all the issues raised in ATLAS II - which are now listed as completed. But are they ongoing issues?
There is no question that a weekly CPWG meeting is one of the ALAC responses on having coordinated policy discussions so that we can identify and respond to issues of concern to ALAC. Are there other things we should be doing/other things that others should be doing. The joint ALAC/NCSG meetings are another part of the answer - what else.
So maybe 10 minutes on this at the next CPWG?
Holly
On May 12, 2019, at 4:26 PM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Then are you saying that one of the policy sessions we have in Marrakech should be to discuss and develop an ALAC statement for the public comment?
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:43 PM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I agree - surprisingly - with both Justine and Olivier.
If you look at the Issues Page (the link one is instructed to use to provide comments), and the many comments quoted made about the challenges in participating - many of which we have made ( time constraints, same people commenting, complexity of issues - pages that feel like someone has been listening in on ALAC conversations) then we need a process to respond to this, and so far, no comments have been made either on the ALAC policy page or the Issues Page. So yes, this is ALAC’s opportunity both to set out our myriad difficulties in responding - and constructive suggestions. We can do this on our own policy page - and then AS ALAC - add comments to the Issues Page (as we are instructed to do), or individuals can go straight to the Issues Page and make their own comments. Either way, this is a issue ALAC has been talking about for ages and we need to at least agree on how to respond. So maybe we need to schedule something in Marrakech where we can coordinate a response to the issue - or at least respond via the policy page.
Holly
On May 11, 2019, at 6:09 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Justine,
On 09/05/2019 14:27, Justine Chew wrote: I would say NOT #3 Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and implementation because UNLESS the goal for topic has changed substantially (and if someone can confirm this or otherwise) this topic has been suggested by ICANN Org in response to the request made by Jonathan Zuck at ICANN 64 in respect of the Board's reaction to the CCTRT Final Report recommendations. I think we should back Jonathan up on this, and it's an important CC topic.
But doesn't this do double duty with the policy commenting on: https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg ? Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
participants (8)
-
Eduardo Diaz -
Glenn McKnight -
Holly Raiche -
Judith Hellerstein -
Justine Chew -
Maureen Hilyard -
Olawale Bakare -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond