Request for Interpretation on the calls
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions, The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call. Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hello all, I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So: 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline) 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages. 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight. 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal. 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably. 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days. 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline. 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period. 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond. Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes. In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes. 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration. My thoughts, hope they are helpful. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible. I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hello all, I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So: 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline) 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages. 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight. 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal. 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably. 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days. 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline. 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period. 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond. Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes. In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes. 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration. My thoughts, hope they are helpful. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
+1 Sent from my iPhone On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible. I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target. Chuck *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hello all, I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So: 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline) 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages. 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight. 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal. 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably. 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days. 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline. 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period. 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond. Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes. In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes. 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration. My thoughts, hope they are helpful. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hello all, I am one of the recently (s)elected representatives from the ccTLD Registry community. FYI the others are: Erick Iriarte Lise Fuhr Staffan Jonson Vika Mpisane Despite being an active ccTLD Registry manager since 1997, I have never been to a ccNSO meeting and I would like to ensure that all ccTLD Registry mangers are consulted as to the IANA process(es) they would like to see going forward. As I am sure you know the ccTLD community is very diverse and for legitimacy of this process it is important they have the opportunity of input and understand what is going on. So I too favour translation of relevant documents. Once the (s)elected ccTLD representatives have had a chance to discuss how to facilitate an inclusive consultation process for ccTLD Registries - we should have a better idea of time requirements. Rest assured we plan to be as efficient as practically possible. Consequently, I too would like to support extending the deadline, with a clear indication of a revised time-line. Regards to all and I look forward to working with you. Best Paul Robert Guerra wrote:
+1
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible.
I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icannorg <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Hello all,
I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So:
1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline)
2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages.
3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight.
4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal.
5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably.
6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days.
7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline.
8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period.
9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond.
Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes.
In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes.
10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration.
My thoughts, hope they are helpful.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron,
I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy.
I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship > Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions, > > The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition > (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship > Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA > Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on > Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call. > > Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going > to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to > operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the > CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN > language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN > should set the standard in this process. > > Kindest regards, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG) > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
As a member of the ICG – but not speaking on behalf of them – I would see this approach as very helpful. However, as you know the ICG target is to submit a common proposal re the three “operational” lines (names, addresses, protocols). So timeline coordination between those 3 should start as early as possible, too. A situation should be avoided where – due to a time gap of providing the 3 sub-proposals – a discussion takes place to fraction the submission of the final proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 3:51 PM To: Kieren McCarthy ; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible. I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hello all, I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So: 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline) 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages. 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight. 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal. 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably. 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days. 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline. 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period. 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond. Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes. In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes. 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration. My thoughts, hope they are helpful. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. Why would it be a problem if the final proposal was submitted in parts? I am not suggesting that that would be ideal, but I am curious to your perspective. Chuck From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:59 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls As a member of the ICG – but not speaking on behalf of them – I would see this approach as very helpful. However, as you know the ICG target is to submit a common proposal re the three “operational” lines (names, addresses, protocols). So timeline coordination between those 3 should start as early as possible, too. A situation should be avoided where – due to a time gap of providing the 3 sub-proposals – a discussion takes place to fraction the submission of the final proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 3:51 PM To: Kieren McCarthy<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> ; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<mailto:ocl@gih.com> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible. I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hello all, I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So: 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline) 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages. 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight. 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal. 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably. 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days. 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline. 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period. 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond. Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes. In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes. 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration. My thoughts, hope they are helpful. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ________________________________ _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
The three parts should be consistent to each other which couldn’t be assured if not submitted as a whole. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 5:21 PM To: WUKnoben ; Kieren McCarthy ; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. Why would it be a problem if the final proposal was submitted in parts? I am not suggesting that that would be ideal, but I am curious to your perspective. Chuck From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:59 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls As a member of the ICG – but not speaking on behalf of them – I would see this approach as very helpful. However, as you know the ICG target is to submit a common proposal re the three “operational” lines (names, addresses, protocols). So timeline coordination between those 3 should start as early as possible, too. A situation should be avoided where – due to a time gap of providing the 3 sub-proposals – a discussion takes place to fraction the submission of the final proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 3:51 PM To: Kieren McCarthy ; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible. I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hello all, I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So: 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline) 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages. 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight. 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal. 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably. 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days. 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline. 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period. 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond. Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes. In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes. 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration. My thoughts, hope they are helpful. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
That makes sense. But because it will likely take longer for the CWG to get approval of recommendations from its sponsoring SOs and ACs, we could feasibly confirm the consistency of the three parts before we can actually submit the naming part. Chuck From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 3:14 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls The three parts should be consistent to each other which couldn’t be assured if not submitted as a whole. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 5:21 PM To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; Kieren McCarthy<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> ; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<mailto:ocl@gih.com> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. Why would it be a problem if the final proposal was submitted in parts? I am not suggesting that that would be ideal, but I am curious to your perspective. Chuck From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de]<mailto:[mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de]> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:59 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls As a member of the ICG – but not speaking on behalf of them – I would see this approach as very helpful. However, as you know the ICG target is to submit a common proposal re the three “operational” lines (names, addresses, protocols). So timeline coordination between those 3 should start as early as possible, too. A situation should be avoided where – due to a time gap of providing the 3 sub-proposals – a discussion takes place to fraction the submission of the final proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 3:51 PM To: Kieren McCarthy<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> ; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<mailto:ocl@gih.com> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible. I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hello all, I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So: 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline) 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages. 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight. 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal. 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably. 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days. 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline. 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period. 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond. Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes. In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes. 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration. My thoughts, hope they are helpful. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ________________________________ _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Both as an ICG member and as a participant in this CWG, I would urge us not to decide in advance that the deadline cannot be met. Try to meet it first, if you can’t then extend it. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:51 PM To: Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible. I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hello all, I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So: 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline) 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages. 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight. 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal. 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably. 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days. 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline. 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period. 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond. Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes. In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes. 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration. My thoughts, hope they are helpful. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, I understand why we need more time. And I understand why we need to do everything possibe to meet the deadline. One of the variable factors is how much time we spend working on this. Perhaps we can plan for some longer sessions on line. As was discussed in the GNSO yesterday, a full day face to face meeting accelerates the work. ICANN, I believe, has informed us that there will be no travel funding for face to face. The next best thing, that perhaps we can try, is half day virtual face to face using the video and other capabilities one finds in tools like webex (i am told that maybe Adobe Connect supports this type of work - but don't know). I know this can be difficult for people in the various time zones. I tend to think of it as jet lag without the jet, and believe that it is possible. Lots of people are already attending meetings a hours in the middle of the night generally. And if we work through the various upcoming holidays in December and January, when many of us are already relieved of some of our day job pressures, we might actually be able to pull this off. And we can do some pain sharing and rotate these longer meetings through the day. Perhaps a few of these longer sessions, and a possible segmentation of some of our task into subteams led by our various co-chairs, might give us a fighting chance to make the deadline. i think we should put the ICG on notice that we may slip, and then try really hard not to. Just a thought. avri On 11-Oct-14 18:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Both as an ICG member and as a participant in this CWG, I would urge us not to decide in advance that the deadline cannot be met. Try to meet it first, if you can't then extend it.
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:51 PM To: Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran's suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible.
I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Hello all,
I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So:
1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline)
2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages.
3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight.
4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal.
5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably.
6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days.
7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline.
8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period.
9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond.
Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes.
In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes.
10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration.
My thoughts, hope they are helpful.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron,
I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy.
I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
But let’s put on paper what needs to be done to do that starting from where we are now and moving forward instead of starting from where we want to end up. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:37 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Both as an ICG member and as a participant in this CWG, I would urge us not to decide in advance that the deadline cannot be met. Try to meet it first, if you can’t then extend it. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:51 PM To: Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible. I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hello all, I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So: 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline) 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages. 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight. 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal. 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably. 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days. 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline. 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period. 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond. Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes. In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes. 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration. My thoughts, hope they are helpful. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
The larger issue is the size of our task. We have in many ways a task as difficult as the ICG, with less time, less resources, less support, and less acknowledgement of the gravity of our task. Under the structure the ICG is "just" supposed to coordinate the IANA transition proposals. We actually have to craft the proposal from the names community. And I assume that we want to do this in a bottom-up, consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder fashion. And as Chuck just noted, this is intertwined with the whole issue of accountability. The ICG is meeting for a full day this week. We are meeting for 90 minutes (while eating lunch). In my "day job," when managing expectations, I sometimes cite an imaginary sign that hangs behind my desk -- "Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick Any Two." I think that applies here as well. If we are going to do the job we are supposed to do to the level of quality we want in the time allotted, we -- and ICANN -- will need to devote significant resources to doing it. For most of us, that resource is time. Yet, as most of us are essentially volunteers, that is a limited resource. so, even if we "give until it hurts," there's only so much we can do. In order to make the best and highest use of that limited resource, ICANN is going to have to devote more of its resources to our task. (Translation is just one potential example.) If that doesn't happen, we will be hard pressed to be both "Fast" and "Good." And, since we must be "Good," if anything gives way, it will be the desire to be "Fast." So maybe we need to put it to ICANN (as well as to ourselves): "Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick Any Two. And one of them has to be Good." Greg Shatan On Oct 12, 2014 9:36 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
But let’s put on paper what needs to be done to do that starting from where we are now and moving forward instead of starting from where we want to end up.
Chuck
*From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:37 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Both as an ICG member and as a participant in this CWG, I would urge us not to decide in advance that the deadline cannot be met. Try to meet it first, if you can’t then extend it.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:51 PM *To:* Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible.
I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Hello all,
I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So:
1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline)
2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages.
3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight.
4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal.
5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably.
6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days.
7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline.
8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period.
9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond.
Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes.
In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes.
10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration.
My thoughts, hope they are helpful.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron,
I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy.
I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Greg and all, I definitely agree with the views shared about short time-line. However i will also like to suggest that we start the process and see how far we can go while we concurrently ask ICANN for more resources that will enhance the process. I see some free spaces on the agenda[1] and am wondering whether those can be used for the CWG meeting purposes?. I think we also need to remember that the names has relatively lots of interest than the other 2 communities so i will expect that there will be quite a lot of proposals and the task of this CWG is to as soon as possible get the RFP call out and determine how to effectively review and come up with a final proposal to be submitted to ICG. So while we are deliberating on the over-all timeline, i will suggest we work with the tentative one that gets the RFP call out as soon as possible. 4 things that may be important right now: - Have a tentative time-line - Agree on the leaderships and roles (chairs/vice et all) - Produce RFP for proposal and publish call - While call is on, keep ourselves busy on the submitted proposal review process Overall we need to move on (ofcourse without risking the loss of a bottom-up process ;) ) Cheers! Regards 1. http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The larger issue is the size of our task. We have in many ways a task as difficult as the ICG, with less time, less resources, less support, and less acknowledgement of the gravity of our task. Under the structure the ICG is "just" supposed to coordinate the IANA transition proposals. We actually have to craft the proposal from the names community. And I assume that we want to do this in a bottom-up, consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder fashion. And as Chuck just noted, this is intertwined with the whole issue of accountability.
The ICG is meeting for a full day this week. We are meeting for 90 minutes (while eating lunch).
In my "day job," when managing expectations, I sometimes cite an imaginary sign that hangs behind my desk -- "Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick Any Two."
I think that applies here as well. If we are going to do the job we are supposed to do to the level of quality we want in the time allotted, we -- and ICANN -- will need to devote significant resources to doing it. For most of us, that resource is time. Yet, as most of us are essentially volunteers, that is a limited resource. so, even if we "give until it hurts," there's only so much we can do.
In order to make the best and highest use of that limited resource, ICANN is going to have to devote more of its resources to our task. (Translation is just one potential example.) If that doesn't happen, we will be hard pressed to be both "Fast" and "Good." And, since we must be "Good," if anything gives way, it will be the desire to be "Fast."
So maybe we need to put it to ICANN (as well as to ourselves): "Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick Any Two. And one of them has to be Good."
Greg Shatan On Oct 12, 2014 9:36 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
But let’s put on paper what needs to be done to do that starting from where we are now and moving forward instead of starting from where we want to end up.
Chuck
*From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:37 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Both as an ICG member and as a participant in this CWG, I would urge us not to decide in advance that the deadline cannot be met. Try to meet it first, if you can’t then extend it.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:51 PM *To:* Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible.
I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Hello all,
I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So:
1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline)
2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages.
3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight.
4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal.
5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably.
6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days.
7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline.
8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period.
9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond.
Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes.
In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes.
10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration.
My thoughts, hope they are helpful.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron,
I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy.
I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
I agree that we need to move forward and cannot wait for improved circumstances. However, I don't believe we are going to be preparing an RFP and putting out a call for responses. Rather, we are going to be preparing the names community's response to the ICG's RFP. So, no need to keep ourselves busy at any point in the near future. We are already busier than we imagine. Greg On Oct 12, 2014 11:47 AM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg and all,
I definitely agree with the views shared about short time-line. However i will also like to suggest that we start the process and see how far we can go while we concurrently ask ICANN for more resources that will enhance the process. I see some free spaces on the agenda[1] and am wondering whether those can be used for the CWG meeting purposes?.
I think we also need to remember that the names has relatively lots of interest than the other 2 communities so i will expect that there will be quite a lot of proposals and the task of this CWG is to as soon as possible get the RFP call out and determine how to effectively review and come up with a final proposal to be submitted to ICG. So while we are deliberating on the over-all timeline, i will suggest we work with the tentative one that gets the RFP call out as soon as possible. 4 things that may be important right now:
- Have a tentative time-line - Agree on the leaderships and roles (chairs/vice et all) - Produce RFP for proposal and publish call - While call is on, keep ourselves busy on the submitted proposal review process
Overall we need to move on (ofcourse without risking the loss of a bottom-up process ;) )
Cheers!
Regards 1. http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The larger issue is the size of our task. We have in many ways a task as difficult as the ICG, with less time, less resources, less support, and less acknowledgement of the gravity of our task. Under the structure the ICG is "just" supposed to coordinate the IANA transition proposals. We actually have to craft the proposal from the names community. And I assume that we want to do this in a bottom-up, consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder fashion. And as Chuck just noted, this is intertwined with the whole issue of accountability.
The ICG is meeting for a full day this week. We are meeting for 90 minutes (while eating lunch).
In my "day job," when managing expectations, I sometimes cite an imaginary sign that hangs behind my desk -- "Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick Any Two."
I think that applies here as well. If we are going to do the job we are supposed to do to the level of quality we want in the time allotted, we -- and ICANN -- will need to devote significant resources to doing it. For most of us, that resource is time. Yet, as most of us are essentially volunteers, that is a limited resource. so, even if we "give until it hurts," there's only so much we can do.
In order to make the best and highest use of that limited resource, ICANN is going to have to devote more of its resources to our task. (Translation is just one potential example.) If that doesn't happen, we will be hard pressed to be both "Fast" and "Good." And, since we must be "Good," if anything gives way, it will be the desire to be "Fast."
So maybe we need to put it to ICANN (as well as to ourselves): "Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick Any Two. And one of them has to be Good."
Greg Shatan On Oct 12, 2014 9:36 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
But let’s put on paper what needs to be done to do that starting from where we are now and moving forward instead of starting from where we want to end up.
Chuck
*From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:37 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Both as an ICG member and as a participant in this CWG, I would urge us not to decide in advance that the deadline cannot be met. Try to meet it first, if you can’t then extend it.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:51 PM *To:* Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible.
I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Hello all,
I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So:
1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline)
2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages.
3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight.
4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal.
5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably.
6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days.
7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline.
8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period.
9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond.
Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes.
In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes.
10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration.
My thoughts, hope they are helpful.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron,
I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy.
I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Hi Greg, On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that we need to move forward and cannot wait for improved circumstances.
However, I don't believe we are going to be preparing an RFP and putting out a call for responses. Rather, we are going to be preparing the names community's response to the ICG's RFP. So, no need to keep ourselves busy at any point in the near future. We are already busier than we imagine.
Hmm....okay, if preparing this is the route that this cross community working group (CWG) prefers then its fine. However before the response (names proposal) is forwarded to the ICG, it needs to under-go an adequately phased process for comments beyond this immediate working group(and open for comments beyond the name communities). This will also mean that there will be a need to have a process in-place to determine how the working group (WG) intends to receive these comments and process them in a transparent and inclusive manner. Cheers!
Greg On Oct 12, 2014 11:47 AM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg and all,
I definitely agree with the views shared about short time-line. However i will also like to suggest that we start the process and see how far we can go while we concurrently ask ICANN for more resources that will enhance the process. I see some free spaces on the agenda[1] and am wondering whether those can be used for the CWG meeting purposes?.
I think we also need to remember that the names has relatively lots of interest than the other 2 communities so i will expect that there will be quite a lot of proposals and the task of this CWG is to as soon as possible get the RFP call out and determine how to effectively review and come up with a final proposal to be submitted to ICG. So while we are deliberating on the over-all timeline, i will suggest we work with the tentative one that gets the RFP call out as soon as possible. 4 things that may be important right now:
- Have a tentative time-line - Agree on the leaderships and roles (chairs/vice et all) - Produce RFP for proposal and publish call - While call is on, keep ourselves busy on the submitted proposal review process
Overall we need to move on (ofcourse without risking the loss of a bottom-up process ;) )
Cheers!
Regards 1. http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The larger issue is the size of our task. We have in many ways a task as difficult as the ICG, with less time, less resources, less support, and less acknowledgement of the gravity of our task. Under the structure the ICG is "just" supposed to coordinate the IANA transition proposals. We actually have to craft the proposal from the names community. And I assume that we want to do this in a bottom-up, consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder fashion. And as Chuck just noted, this is intertwined with the whole issue of accountability.
The ICG is meeting for a full day this week. We are meeting for 90 minutes (while eating lunch).
In my "day job," when managing expectations, I sometimes cite an imaginary sign that hangs behind my desk -- "Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick Any Two."
I think that applies here as well. If we are going to do the job we are supposed to do to the level of quality we want in the time allotted, we -- and ICANN -- will need to devote significant resources to doing it. For most of us, that resource is time. Yet, as most of us are essentially volunteers, that is a limited resource. so, even if we "give until it hurts," there's only so much we can do.
In order to make the best and highest use of that limited resource, ICANN is going to have to devote more of its resources to our task. (Translation is just one potential example.) If that doesn't happen, we will be hard pressed to be both "Fast" and "Good." And, since we must be "Good," if anything gives way, it will be the desire to be "Fast."
So maybe we need to put it to ICANN (as well as to ourselves): "Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick Any Two. And one of them has to be Good."
Greg Shatan On Oct 12, 2014 9:36 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
But let’s put on paper what needs to be done to do that starting from where we are now and moving forward instead of starting from where we want to end up.
Chuck
*From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:37 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Both as an ICG member and as a participant in this CWG, I would urge us not to decide in advance that the deadline cannot be met. Try to meet it first, if you can’t then extend it.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:51 PM *To:* Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible.
I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Hello all,
I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So:
1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline)
2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages.
3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight.
4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal.
5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably.
6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days.
7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline.
8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period.
9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond.
Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes.
In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes.
10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration.
My thoughts, hope they are helpful.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron,
I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy.
I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
I agree that public comment is an essential phase in our work, just as it is regarding the deliverable from any WG. But first we need a deliverable, which should be developed using bottom up consensus driven Multi-Stakeholder ("bucdMS") principles. On Oct 12, 2014 12:07 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that we need to move forward and cannot wait for improved circumstances.
However, I don't believe we are going to be preparing an RFP and putting out a call for responses. Rather, we are going to be preparing the names community's response to the ICG's RFP. So, no need to keep ourselves busy at any point in the near future. We are already busier than we imagine.
Hmm....okay, if preparing this is the route that this cross community working group (CWG) prefers then its fine. However before the response (names proposal) is forwarded to the ICG, it needs to under-go an adequately phased process for comments beyond this immediate working group(and open for comments beyond the name communities). This will also mean that there will be a need to have a process in-place to determine how the working group (WG) intends to receive these comments and process them in a transparent and inclusive manner.
Cheers!
Greg On Oct 12, 2014 11:47 AM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg and all,
I definitely agree with the views shared about short time-line. However i will also like to suggest that we start the process and see how far we can go while we concurrently ask ICANN for more resources that will enhance the process. I see some free spaces on the agenda[1] and am wondering whether those can be used for the CWG meeting purposes?.
I think we also need to remember that the names has relatively lots of interest than the other 2 communities so i will expect that there will be quite a lot of proposals and the task of this CWG is to as soon as possible get the RFP call out and determine how to effectively review and come up with a final proposal to be submitted to ICG. So while we are deliberating on the over-all timeline, i will suggest we work with the tentative one that gets the RFP call out as soon as possible. 4 things that may be important right now:
- Have a tentative time-line - Agree on the leaderships and roles (chairs/vice et all) - Produce RFP for proposal and publish call - While call is on, keep ourselves busy on the submitted proposal review process
Overall we need to move on (ofcourse without risking the loss of a bottom-up process ;) )
Cheers!
Regards 1. http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The larger issue is the size of our task. We have in many ways a task as difficult as the ICG, with less time, less resources, less support, and less acknowledgement of the gravity of our task. Under the structure the ICG is "just" supposed to coordinate the IANA transition proposals. We actually have to craft the proposal from the names community. And I assume that we want to do this in a bottom-up, consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder fashion. And as Chuck just noted, this is intertwined with the whole issue of accountability.
The ICG is meeting for a full day this week. We are meeting for 90 minutes (while eating lunch).
In my "day job," when managing expectations, I sometimes cite an imaginary sign that hangs behind my desk -- "Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick Any Two."
I think that applies here as well. If we are going to do the job we are supposed to do to the level of quality we want in the time allotted, we -- and ICANN -- will need to devote significant resources to doing it. For most of us, that resource is time. Yet, as most of us are essentially volunteers, that is a limited resource. so, even if we "give until it hurts," there's only so much we can do.
In order to make the best and highest use of that limited resource, ICANN is going to have to devote more of its resources to our task. (Translation is just one potential example.) If that doesn't happen, we will be hard pressed to be both "Fast" and "Good." And, since we must be "Good," if anything gives way, it will be the desire to be "Fast."
So maybe we need to put it to ICANN (as well as to ourselves): "Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick Any Two. And one of them has to be Good."
Greg Shatan On Oct 12, 2014 9:36 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
But let’s put on paper what needs to be done to do that starting from where we are now and moving forward instead of starting from where we want to end up.
Chuck
*From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:37 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Both as an ICG member and as a participant in this CWG, I would urge us not to decide in advance that the deadline cannot be met. Try to meet it first, if you can’t then extend it.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:51 PM *To:* Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible.
I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Hello all,
I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So:
1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline)
2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages.
3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight.
4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal.
5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably.
6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days.
7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline.
8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period.
9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond.
Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes.
In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes.
10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration.
My thoughts, hope they are helpful.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond < ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron,
I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy.
I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Seun, I don't understand where an RFP would come into play. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji Date:10/12/2014 2:47 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Greg Shatan Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" , Kieren McCarthy , cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hi Greg and all, I definitely agree with the views shared about short time-line. However i will also like to suggest that we start the process and see how far we can go while we concurrently ask ICANN for more resources that will enhance the process. I see some free spaces on the agenda[1] and am wondering whether those can be used for the CWG meeting purposes?. I think we also need to remember that the names has relatively lots of interest than the other 2 communities so i will expect that there will be quite a lot of proposals and the task of this CWG is to as soon as possible get the RFP call out and determine how to effectively review and come up with a final proposal to be submitted to ICG. So while we are deliberating on the over-all timeline, i will suggest we work with the tentative one that gets the RFP call out as soon as possible. 4 things that may be important right now: - Have a tentative time-line - Agree on the leaderships and roles (chairs/vice et all) - Produce RFP for proposal and publish call - While call is on, keep ourselves busy on the submitted proposal review process Overall we need to move on (ofcourse without risking the loss of a bottom-up process ;) ) Cheers! Regards 1. http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The larger issue is the size of our task. We have in many ways a task as difficult as the ICG, with less time, less resources, less support, and less acknowledgement of the gravity of our task. Under the structure the ICG is "just" supposed to coordinate the IANA transition proposals. We actually have to craft the proposal from the names community. And I assume that we want to do this in a bottom-up, consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder fashion. And as Chuck just noted, this is intertwined with the whole issue of accountability. The ICG is meeting for a full day this week. We are meeting for 90 minutes (while eating lunch). In my "day job," when managing expectations, I sometimes cite an imaginary sign that hangs behind my desk -- "Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick Any Two." I think that applies here as well. If we are going to do the job we are supposed to do to the level of quality we want in the time allotted, we -- and ICANN -- will need to devote significant resources to doing it. For most of us, that resource is time. Yet, as most of us are essentially volunteers, that is a limited resource. so, even if we "give until it hurts," there's only so much we can do. In order to make the best and highest use of that limited resource, ICANN is going to have to devote more of its resources to our task. (Translation is just one potential example.) If that doesn't happen, we will be hard pressed to be both "Fast" and "Good." And, since we must be "Good," if anything gives way, it will be the desire to be "Fast." So maybe we need to put it to ICANN (as well as to ourselves): "Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick Any Two. And one of them has to be Good." Greg Shatan On Oct 12, 2014 9:36 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: But let’s put on paper what needs to be done to do that starting from where we are now and moving forward instead of starting from where we want to end up. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:37 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Both as an ICG member and as a participant in this CWG, I would urge us not to decide in advance that the deadline cannot be met. Try to meet it first, if you can’t then extend it. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:51 PM To: Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible. I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hello all, I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So: 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline) 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages. 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight. 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal. 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably. 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days. 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline. 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period. 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond. Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes. In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes. 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration. My thoughts, hope they are helpful. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Hi Chucks, An RFP (request for proposal) will be applicable if communities within the names (an beyond) is permitted to submit a proposal to this working group. However Greg is of the opinion that this group will actually be doing the drafting from scratch. Which is still fine so long as the development process is inclusive beyond this community. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 12 Oct 2014 13:44, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Seun,
I don't understand where an RFP would come into play.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji Date:10/12/2014 2:47 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Greg Shatan Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" , Kieren McCarthy , cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Hi Greg and all,
I definitely agree with the views shared about short time-line. However i will also like to suggest that we start the process and see how far we can go while we concurrently ask ICANN for more resources that will enhance the process. I see some free spaces on the agenda[1] and am wondering whether those can be used for the CWG meeting purposes?.
I think we also need to remember that the names has relatively lots of interest than the other 2 communities so i will expect that there will be quite a lot of proposals and the task of this CWG is to as soon as possible get the RFP call out and determine how to effectively review and come up with a final proposal to be submitted to ICG. So while we are deliberating on the over-all timeline, i will suggest we work with the tentative one that gets the RFP call out as soon as possible. 4 things that may be important right now:
- Have a tentative time-line - Agree on the leaderships and roles (chairs/vice et all) - Produce RFP for proposal and publish call - While call is on, keep ourselves busy on the submitted proposal review process
Overall we need to move on (ofcourse without risking the loss of a bottom-up process ;) )
Cheers!
Regards 1. http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The larger issue is the size of our task. We have in many ways a task as difficult as the ICG, with less time, less resources, less support, and less acknowledgement of the gravity of our task. Under the structure the ICG is "just" supposed to coordinate the IANA transition proposals. We actually have to craft the proposal from the names community. And I assume that we want to do this in a bottom-up, consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder fashion. And as Chuck just noted, this is intertwined with the whole issue of accountability.
The ICG is meeting for a full day this week. We are meeting for 90 minutes (while eating lunch).
In my "day job," when managing expectations, I sometimes cite an imaginary sign that hangs behind my desk -- "Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick Any Two."
I think that applies here as well. If we are going to do the job we are supposed to do to the level of quality we want in the time allotted, we -- and ICANN -- will need to devote significant resources to doing it. For most of us, that resource is time. Yet, as most of us are essentially volunteers, that is a limited resource. so, even if we "give until it hurts," there's only so much we can do.
In order to make the best and highest use of that limited resource, ICANN is going to have to devote more of its resources to our task. (Translation is just one potential example.) If that doesn't happen, we will be hard pressed to be both "Fast" and "Good." And, since we must be "Good," if anything gives way, it will be the desire to be "Fast."
So maybe we need to put it to ICANN (as well as to ourselves): "Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick Any Two. And one of them has to be Good."
Greg Shatan On Oct 12, 2014 9:36 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
But let’s put on paper what needs to be done to do that starting from where we are now and moving forward instead of starting from where we want to end up.
Chuck
*From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:37 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Both as an ICG member and as a participant in this CWG, I would urge us not to decide in advance that the deadline cannot be met. Try to meet it first, if you can’t then extend it.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:51 PM *To:* Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible.
I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Hello all,
I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So:
1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline)
2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages.
3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight.
4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal.
5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably.
6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days.
7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline.
8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period.
9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond.
Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes.
In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes.
10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration.
My thoughts, hope they are helpful.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron,
I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy.
I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535 **alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Thanks Seun. That helps. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji Date:10/12/2014 4:57 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" Cc: Kieren McCarthy , Greg Shatan , cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hi Chucks, An RFP (request for proposal) will be applicable if communities within the names (an beyond) is permitted to submit a proposal to this working group. However Greg is of the opinion that this group will actually be doing the drafting from scratch. Which is still fine so long as the development process is inclusive beyond this community. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 12 Oct 2014 13:44, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Seun, I don't understand where an RFP would come into play. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji Date:10/12/2014 2:47 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Greg Shatan Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" , Kieren McCarthy , cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hi Greg and all, I definitely agree with the views shared about short time-line. However i will also like to suggest that we start the process and see how far we can go while we concurrently ask ICANN for more resources that will enhance the process. I see some free spaces on the agenda[1] and am wondering whether those can be used for the CWG meeting purposes?. I think we also need to remember that the names has relatively lots of interest than the other 2 communities so i will expect that there will be quite a lot of proposals and the task of this CWG is to as soon as possible get the RFP call out and determine how to effectively review and come up with a final proposal to be submitted to ICG. So while we are deliberating on the over-all timeline, i will suggest we work with the tentative one that gets the RFP call out as soon as possible. 4 things that may be important right now: - Have a tentative time-line - Agree on the leaderships and roles (chairs/vice et all) - Produce RFP for proposal and publish call - While call is on, keep ourselves busy on the submitted proposal review process Overall we need to move on (ofcourse without risking the loss of a bottom-up process ;) ) Cheers! Regards 1. http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The larger issue is the size of our task. We have in many ways a task as difficult as the ICG, with less time, less resources, less support, and less acknowledgement of the gravity of our task. Under the structure the ICG is "just" supposed to coordinate the IANA transition proposals. We actually have to craft the proposal from the names community. And I assume that we want to do this in a bottom-up, consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder fashion. And as Chuck just noted, this is intertwined with the whole issue of accountability. The ICG is meeting for a full day this week. We are meeting for 90 minutes (while eating lunch). In my "day job," when managing expectations, I sometimes cite an imaginary sign that hangs behind my desk -- "Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick Any Two." I think that applies here as well. If we are going to do the job we are supposed to do to the level of quality we want in the time allotted, we -- and ICANN -- will need to devote significant resources to doing it. For most of us, that resource is time. Yet, as most of us are essentially volunteers, that is a limited resource. so, even if we "give until it hurts," there's only so much we can do. In order to make the best and highest use of that limited resource, ICANN is going to have to devote more of its resources to our task. (Translation is just one potential example.) If that doesn't happen, we will be hard pressed to be both "Fast" and "Good." And, since we must be "Good," if anything gives way, it will be the desire to be "Fast." So maybe we need to put it to ICANN (as well as to ourselves): "Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick Any Two. And one of them has to be Good." Greg Shatan On Oct 12, 2014 9:36 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: But let’s put on paper what needs to be done to do that starting from where we are now and moving forward instead of starting from where we want to end up. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:37 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Both as an ICG member and as a participant in this CWG, I would urge us not to decide in advance that the deadline cannot be met. Try to meet it first, if you can’t then extend it. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:51 PM To: Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible. I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hello all, I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So: 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline) 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages. 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight. 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal. 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably. 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days. 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline. 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period. 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond. Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes. In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes. 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration. My thoughts, hope they are helpful. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Please excuse me, I am travelling overseas and won't be able to attend the meeting. Will check the transcripts and contribute thereafter. Regards,Bilal -------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji Date:10/12/2014 4:57 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" Cc: Kieren McCarthy , Greg Shatan , cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hi Chucks, An RFP (request for proposal) will be applicable if communities within the names (an beyond) is permitted to submit a proposal to this working group. However Greg is of the opinion that this group will actually be doing the drafting from scratch. Which is still fine so long as the development process is inclusive beyond this community. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 12 Oct 2014 13:44, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Seun, I don't understand where an RFP would come into play. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji Date:10/12/2014 2:47 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Greg Shatan Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" , Kieren McCarthy , cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hi Greg and all, I definitely agree with the views shared about short time-line. However i will also like to suggest that we start the process and see how far we can go while we concurrently ask ICANN for more resources that will enhance the process. I see some free spaces on the agenda[1] and am wondering whether those can be used for the CWG meeting purposes?. I think we also need to remember that the names has relatively lots of interest than the other 2 communities so i will expect that there will be quite a lot of proposals and the task of this CWG is to as soon as possible get the RFP call out and determine how to effectively review and come up with a final proposal to be submitted to ICG. So while we are deliberating on the over-all timeline, i will suggest we work with the tentative one that gets the RFP call out as soon as possible. 4 things that may be important right now: - Have a tentative time-line - Agree on the leaderships and roles (chairs/vice et all) - Produce RFP for proposal and publish call - While call is on, keep ourselves busy on the submitted proposal review process Overall we need to move on (ofcourse without risking the loss of a bottom-up process ;) ) Cheers! Regards 1. http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: The larger issue is the size of our task. We have in many ways a task as difficult as the ICG, with less time, less resources, less support, and less acknowledgement of the gravity of our task. Under the structure the ICG is "just" supposed to coordinate the IANA transition proposals. We actually have to craft the proposal from the names community. And I assume that we want to do this in a bottom-up, consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder fashion. And as Chuck just noted, this is intertwined with the whole issue of accountability. The ICG is meeting for a full day this week. We are meeting for 90 minutes (while eating lunch). In my "day job," when managing expectations, I sometimes cite an imaginary sign that hangs behind my desk -- "Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick Any Two." I think that applies here as well. If we are going to do the job we are supposed to do to the level of quality we want in the time allotted, we -- and ICANN -- will need to devote significant resources to doing it. For most of us, that resource is time. Yet, as most of us are essentially volunteers, that is a limited resource. so, even if we "give until it hurts," there's only so much we can do. In order to make the best and highest use of that limited resource, ICANN is going to have to devote more of its resources to our task. (Translation is just one potential example.) If that doesn't happen, we will be hard pressed to be both "Fast" and "Good." And, since we must be "Good," if anything gives way, it will be the desire to be "Fast." So maybe we need to put it to ICANN (as well as to ourselves): "Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick Any Two. And one of them has to be Good." Greg Shatan On Oct 12, 2014 9:36 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: But let’s put on paper what needs to be done to do that starting from where we are now and moving forward instead of starting from where we want to end up. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:37 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Both as an ICG member and as a participant in this CWG, I would urge us not to decide in advance that the deadline cannot be met. Try to meet it first, if you can’t then extend it. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:51 PM To: Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible. I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hello all, I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So: 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline) 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages. 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight. 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal. 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably. 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days. 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline. 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period. 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond. Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes. In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes. 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration. My thoughts, hope they are helpful. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship
Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition
(short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship
Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA
Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on
Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going
to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to
operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the
CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN
language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN
should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
(for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng The key to understanding is humility - my view ! _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi all, Following on from Milton Muellers suggestion in the CWG IANA meeting, attached is the Jordan Carter / InternetNZ position paper on IANA and a number of scenarios for transitioning to. Some members of both groups may find this informative. Cheers Keith Davidson
participants (12)
-
Avri Doria -
Bilal Titi -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Keith Davidson -
Kieren McCarthy -
Milton L Mueller -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Paul M Kane -
Robert Guerra -
Seun Ojedeji -
WUKnoben