Updated draft Initial Report
Dear WG members, Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG¹s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E). All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw. We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other consequent changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones. As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April). Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Hi All, Do I understand correctly that we are putting out a 100+ page report on a complex subject for review by the ICANN Community - and world community - *before Buenos Aires*?? That seems awfully tight if we want substantive comments - and the outreach to participate -- that a WG presentation/discussion in Buenos Aires would encourage (and the web presence it would create). We (in the WG) have talked about these issues a lot - but have others outside our WG followed these them with so many other things in motion? In the Whois Review Team we heard a lot of complaints from individuals, organizations, data protection and law enforcement offices that ICANN's proceeding are difficult to follow and even more difficult to participate in -- in large part because the rapid comment timeframes are not conducive to global outreach or the timelines needed to encourage substantive and thoughtful comments (especially by government entities). We issued a recommendation that on Whois issues, in particular, we have to do more... *WHOIS Review Team Final Report** */Recommendation 3 - Outreach// /ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness. I think we should allow two months to respond -- at a minimum. Best, Kathy On 4/23/2015 6:31 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear WG members,
Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG’s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E).
All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw.
We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other – consequent – changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes – one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones.
As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April).
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hello Kathy and everyone, As with all other PDPs and as expected by the GNSO WG Guidelines, the expectation is that each SG/C/interest group that is represented on the WG would have received regular updates on the status and progress of the work, such that the public comment period will allow for constructive and timely community input. Do note that the public comment period we are working with is now a minimum of 40 days (the change having been made in January 2015 following extensive review of ATRT1 & ATRT2 recommendations as well as community feedback); it may be noteworthy to compare that with the GNSO PDP Manual, which still foresees the public comment period following the publication of an Initial Report as a minimum of 30 days. In the case of our WG, the first draft Initial Report was first circulated in December 2014, with a few revisions made to the Executive Summary and recirculated in January 2015. It was the January 2015 draft that was updated last week following further WG discussion on what had been identified as open questions. In addition, the WG Work Plan was modified several times in the last few months to postpone the publication date of the Initial Report (although none changed the objective of having the public comment period completed before Buenos Aires). The latest update to the Work Plan was published after discussion with the WG two weeks ago. Additionally, as I¹d noted when circulating the report on Thursday, the major changes from the January 2015 draft version are concentrated in the Executive Summary and the accompanying explanatory text in Section 7. It is of course for the WG, guided by the Chairs, to decide whether particular recommended periods, milestones and timelines in its Work Plan remain adequate and workable. Depending on the WG¹s comments on the 23 April text, this may therefore be something the WG can consider following the WG discussion tomorrow. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 16:43 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines
Hi All, Do I understand correctly that we are putting out a 100+ page report on a complex subject for review by the ICANN Community - and world community - *before Buenos Aires*?? That seems awfully tight if we want substantive comments - and the outreach to participate -- that a WG presentation/discussion in Buenos Aires would encourage (and the web presence it would create). We (in the WG) have talked about these issues a lot - but have others outside our WG followed these them with so many other things in motion?
In the Whois Review Team we heard a lot of complaints from individuals, organizations, data protection and law enforcement offices that ICANN's proceeding are difficult to follow and even more difficult to participate in -- in large part because the rapid comment timeframes are not conducive to global outreach or the timelines needed to encourage substantive and thoughtful comments (especially by government entities). We issued a recommendation that on Whois issues, in particular, we have to do more...
WHOIS Review Team Final Report Recommendation 3 - Outreach ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness.
I think we should allow two months to respond -- at a minimum. Best, Kathy
On 4/23/2015 6:31 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear WG members,
Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG¹s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E).
All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw.
We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other consequent changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones.
As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April).
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-p dp-wg
Hi Kathy, I agree with you that more people outside of ICANN should provide input and review our report but as you know that is a hard thing to actually have occur. The EWG was composed of several people either on the fringe of the ICANN community or completely outside of it to start. Stephanie is the only one that truly dug in and got involved. We also reached out to many different groups for input as we were drafting our report and received very little in return. The IANA transition has brought more interest to ICANN than previously but I do not see an uptick in comments from those outside of ICANN on other issues. Not sure adding time to the comment period will gain much. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines Hi All, Do I understand correctly that we are putting out a 100+ page report on a complex subject for review by the ICANN Community - and world community - *before Buenos Aires*?? That seems awfully tight if we want substantive comments - and the outreach to participate -- that a WG presentation/discussion in Buenos Aires would encourage (and the web presence it would create). We (in the WG) have talked about these issues a lot - but have others outside our WG followed these them with so many other things in motion? In the Whois Review Team we heard a lot of complaints from individuals, organizations, data protection and law enforcement offices that ICANN's proceeding are difficult to follow and even more difficult to participate in -- in large part because the rapid comment timeframes are not conducive to global outreach or the timelines needed to encourage substantive and thoughtful comments (especially by government entities). We issued a recommendation that on Whois issues, in particular, we have to do more... WHOIS Review Team Final Report Recommendation 3 - Outreach ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness. I think we should allow two months to respond -- at a minimum. Best, Kathy On 4/23/2015 6:31 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear WG members, Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG’s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E). All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw. We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other – consequent – changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes – one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones. As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April). Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
It is indeed very discouraging that there is so little interest outside ICANN insiders. However, a longer timeframe gives us time to do the outreach to busy individuals and organizations, and attempt to attract their interest. Posting on the ICANN website is not enough. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-04-28 6:22, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
Hi Kathy,
I agree with you that more people outside of ICANN should provide input and review our report but as you know that is a hard thing to actually have occur. The EWG was composed of several people either on the fringe of the ICANN community or completely outside of it to start. Stephanie is the only one that truly dug in and got involved. We also reached out to many different groups for input as we were drafting our report and received very little in return.
The IANA transition has brought more interest to ICANN than previously but I do not see an uptick in comments from those outside of ICANN on other issues.
Not sure adding time to the comment period will gain much.
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines
Hi All, Do I understand correctly that we are putting out a 100+ page report on a complex subject for review by the ICANN Community - and world community - *before Buenos Aires*?? That seems awfully tight if we want substantive comments - and the outreach to participate -- that a WG presentation/discussion in Buenos Aires would encourage (and the web presence it would create). We (in the WG) have talked about these issues a lot - but have others outside our WG followed these them with so many other things in motion?
In the Whois Review Team we heard a lot of complaints from individuals, organizations, data protection and law enforcement offices that ICANN's proceeding are difficult to follow and even more difficult to participate in -- in large part because the rapid comment timeframes are not conducive to global outreach or the timelines needed to encourage substantive and thoughtful comments (especially by government entities). We issued a recommendation that on Whois issues, in particular, we have to do more...
*WHOIS Review Team Final Report** */Recommendation 3 - Outreach// /ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness.
I think we should allow two months to respond -- at a minimum. Best, Kathy
On 4/23/2015 6:31 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear WG members,
Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG’s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E).
All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw.
We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other – consequent – changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes – one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones.
As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April).
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Outreach is very important, you're right. Where has everyone been that they are only just thinking about outreach now at the initial report stage? This group has been working for an AGE. Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: It is indeed very discouraging that there is so little interest outside ICANN insiders. However, a longer timeframe gives us time to do the outreach to busy individuals and organizations, and attempt to attract their interest. Posting on the ICANN website is not enough. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-04-28 6:22, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: Hi Kathy, I agree with you that more people outside of ICANN should provide input and review our report but as you know that is a hard thing to actually have occur. The EWG was composed of several people either on the fringe of the ICANN community or completely outside of it to start. Stephanie is the only one that truly dug in and got involved. We also reached out to many different groups for input as we were drafting our report and received very little in return. The IANA transition has brought more interest to ICANN than previously but I do not see an uptick in comments from those outside of ICANN on other issues. Not sure adding time to the comment period will gain much. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines Hi All, Do I understand correctly that we are putting out a 100+ page report on a complex subject for review by the ICANN Community - and world community - *before Buenos Aires*?? That seems awfully tight if we want substantive comments - and the outreach to participate -- that a WG presentation/discussion in Buenos Aires would encourage (and the web presence it would create). We (in the WG) have talked about these issues a lot - but have others outside our WG followed these them with so many other things in motion? In the Whois Review Team we heard a lot of complaints from individuals, organizations, data protection and law enforcement offices that ICANN's proceeding are difficult to follow and even more difficult to participate in -- in large part because the rapid comment timeframes are not conducive to global outreach or the timelines needed to encourage substantive and thoughtful comments (especially by government entities). We issued a recommendation that on Whois issues, in particular, we have to do more... WHOIS Review Team Final Report Recommendation 3 - Outreach ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness. I think we should allow two months to respond -- at a minimum. Best, Kathy On 4/23/2015 6:31 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear WG members, Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG’s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E). All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw. We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other – consequent – changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes – one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones. As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April). Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Getting people engaged prior to the final report wastes the very little precious time they have to devote to the exercise, in my experience. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin On 2015-04-28 7:20, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
Outreach is very important, you're right. Where has everyone been that they are only just thinking about outreach now at the initial report stage? This group has been working for an AGE.
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
It is indeed very discouraging that there is so little interest outside ICANN insiders. However, a longer timeframe gives us time to do the outreach to busy individuals and organizations, and attempt to attract their interest. Posting on the ICANN website is not enough. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-04-28 6:22, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: Hi Kathy,
I agree with you that more people outside of ICANN should provide input and review our report but as you know that is a hard thing to actually have occur. The EWG was composed of several people either on the fringe of the ICANN community or completely outside of it to start. Stephanie is the only one that truly dug in and got involved. We also reached out to many different groups for input as we were drafting our report and received very little in return.
The IANA transition has brought more interest to ICANN than previously but I do not see an uptick in comments from those outside of ICANN on other issues.
Not sure adding time to the comment period will gain much. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines
Hi All, Do I understand correctly that we are putting out a 100+ page report on a complex subject for review by the ICANN Community - and world community - *before Buenos Aires*?? That seems awfully tight if we want substantive comments - and the outreach to participate -- that a WG presentation/discussion in Buenos Aires would encourage (and the web presence it would create). We (in the WG) have talked about these issues a lot - but have others outside our WG followed these them with so many other things in motion?
In the Whois Review Team we heard a lot of complaints from individuals, organizations, data protection and law enforcement offices that ICANN's proceeding are difficult to follow and even more difficult to participate in -- in large part because the rapid comment timeframes are not conducive to global outreach or the timelines needed to encourage substantive and thoughtful comments (especially by government entities). We issued a recommendation that on Whois issues, in particular, we have to do more...
WHOIS Review Team Final Report Recommendation 3 - Outreach ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness.
I think we should allow two months to respond -- at a minimum. Best, Kathy
On 4/23/2015 6:31 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear WG members,
Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG’s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E).
All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw.
We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other – consequent – changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes – one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones.
As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April).
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Then why are you pressing for more time for the initial report? Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Getting people engaged prior to the final report wastes the very little precious time they have to devote to the exercise, in my experience. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-04-28 7:20, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: Outreach is very important, you're right. Where has everyone been that they are only just thinking about outreach now at the initial report stage? This group has been working for an AGE.
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
It is indeed very discouraging that there is so little interest outside ICANN insiders. However, a longer timeframe gives us time to do the outreach to busy individuals and organizations, and attempt to attract their interest. Posting on the ICANN website is not enough. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-04-28 6:22, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: Hi Kathy,
I agree with you that more people outside of ICANN should provide input and review our report but as you know that is a hard thing to actually have occur. The EWG was composed of several people either on the fringe of the ICANN community or completely outside of it to start. Stephanie is the only one that truly dug in and got involved. We also reached out to many different groups for input as we were drafting our report and received very little in return.
The IANA transition has brought more interest to ICANN than previously but I do not see an uptick in comments from those outside of ICANN on other issues.
Not sure adding time to the comment period will gain much. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines
Hi All, Do I understand correctly that we are putting out a 100+ page report on a complex subject for review by the ICANN Community - and world community - *before Buenos Aires*?? That seems awfully tight if we want substantive comments - and the outreach to participate -- that a WG presentation/discussion in Buenos Aires would encourage (and the web presence it would create). We (in the WG) have talked about these issues a lot - but have others outside our WG followed these them with so many other things in motion?
In the Whois Review Team we heard a lot of complaints from individuals, organizations, data protection and law enforcement offices that ICANN's proceeding are difficult to follow and even more difficult to participate in -- in large part because the rapid comment timeframes are not conducive to global outreach or the timelines needed to encourage substantive and thoughtful comments (especially by government entities). We issued a recommendation that on Whois issues, in particular, we have to do more...
WHOIS Review Team Final Report Recommendation 3 - Outreach ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness.
I think we should allow two months to respond -- at a minimum. Best, Kathy
On 4/23/2015 6:31 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear WG members,
Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG’s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E).
All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw.
We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other – consequent – changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes – one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones.
As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April).
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Because this is the optimal time for comments. WHat I am discussing is the futility of dragging outsiders along on the painful, 74 meeting journey that we have been on thus far. We also dont want people coming in at the end of the process, do we? Kind regards, Stephanie On 2015-04-28 9:24, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
Then why are you pressing for more time for the initial report?
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Getting people engaged prior to the final report wastes the very little precious time they have to devote to the exercise, in my experience. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-04-28 7:20, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: Outreach is very important, you're right. Where has everyone been that they are only just thinking about outreach now at the initial report stage? This group has been working for an AGE.
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
It is indeed very discouraging that there is so little interest outside ICANN insiders. However, a longer timeframe gives us time to do the outreach to busy individuals and organizations, and attempt to attract their interest. Posting on the ICANN website is not enough. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-04-28 6:22, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: Hi Kathy,
I agree with you that more people outside of ICANN should provide input and review our report but as you know that is a hard thing to actually have occur. The EWG was composed of several people either on the fringe of the ICANN community or completely outside of it to start. Stephanie is the only one that truly dug in and got involved. We also reached out to many different groups for input as we were drafting our report and received very little in return.
The IANA transition has brought more interest to ICANN than previously but I do not see an uptick in comments from those outside of ICANN on other issues.
Not sure adding time to the comment period will gain much. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines
Hi All, Do I understand correctly that we are putting out a 100+ page report on a complex subject for review by the ICANN Community - and world community - *before Buenos Aires*?? That seems awfully tight if we want substantive comments - and the outreach to participate -- that a WG presentation/discussion in Buenos Aires would encourage (and the web presence it would create). We (in the WG) have talked about these issues a lot - but have others outside our WG followed these them with so many other things in motion?
In the Whois Review Team we heard a lot of complaints from individuals, organizations, data protection and law enforcement offices that ICANN's proceeding are difficult to follow and even more difficult to participate in -- in large part because the rapid comment timeframes are not conducive to global outreach or the timelines needed to encourage substantive and thoughtful comments (especially by government entities). We issued a recommendation that on Whois issues, in particular, we have to do more...
WHOIS Review Team Final Report Recommendation 3 - Outreach ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness.
I think we should allow two months to respond -- at a minimum. Best, Kathy
On 4/23/2015 6:31 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear WG members,
Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG’s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E).
All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw.
We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other – consequent – changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes – one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones.
As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April).
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Kiran, Because it is important. It is the initial report that lays out our ideas and synthesis, achieved from so much cooperation and compromise, to the world to evaluate and comment on. Because we have 100+ pages of complicated text, and we know there are many communities who would like to review this material if they had the time, it seems reasonable to give it to them. Best, Kathy :
Then why are you pressing for more time for the initial report?
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Getting people engaged prior to the final report wastes the very little precious time they have to devote to the exercise, in my experience. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-04-28 7:20, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: Outreach is very important, you're right. Where has everyone been that they are only just thinking about outreach now at the initial report stage? This group has been working for an AGE.
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
It is indeed very discouraging that there is so little interest outside ICANN insiders. However, a longer timeframe gives us time to do the outreach to busy individuals and organizations, and attempt to attract their interest. Posting on the ICANN website is not enough. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-04-28 6:22, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: Hi Kathy,
I agree with you that more people outside of ICANN should provide input and review our report but as you know that is a hard thing to actually have occur. The EWG was composed of several people either on the fringe of the ICANN community or completely outside of it to start. Stephanie is the only one that truly dug in and got involved. We also reached out to many different groups for input as we were drafting our report and received very little in return.
The IANA transition has brought more interest to ICANN than previously but I do not see an uptick in comments from those outside of ICANN on other issues.
Not sure adding time to the comment period will gain much. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines
Hi All, Do I understand correctly that we are putting out a 100+ page report on a complex subject for review by the ICANN Community - and world community - *before Buenos Aires*?? That seems awfully tight if we want substantive comments - and the outreach to participate -- that a WG presentation/discussion in Buenos Aires would encourage (and the web presence it would create). We (in the WG) have talked about these issues a lot - but have others outside our WG followed these them with so many other things in motion?
In the Whois Review Team we heard a lot of complaints from individuals, organizations, data protection and law enforcement offices that ICANN's proceeding are difficult to follow and even more difficult to participate in -- in large part because the rapid comment timeframes are not conducive to global outreach or the timelines needed to encourage substantive and thoughtful comments (especially by government entities). We issued a recommendation that on Whois issues, in particular, we have to do more...
WHOIS Review Team Final Report Recommendation 3 - Outreach ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness.
I think we should allow two months to respond -- at a minimum. Best, Kathy
On 4/23/2015 6:31 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear WG members,
Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG’s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E).
All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw.
We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other – consequent – changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes – one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones.
As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April).
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hello again everyone, As you continue to discuss the timeline question, we thought you might find it useful to note that the WG has conducted community sessions and provided an update to the GNSO at every ICANN Public Meeting since its chartering (i.e. starting at ICANN48 in Buenos Aires in November 2013). In addition, early feedback from all ICANN SO/ACs was sought (as required by the GNSO PDP Manual) and received from all three CSG constituencies, the NCSG and the ALAC. The scope of our WG also builds on substantial work done by (among others) the GNSO, ALAC and the WHOIS Review Team prior to the conclusion of the 2013 RAA negotiations, and there has been some periodic media coverage of the issues as well as our WG. Most recently, Nominet referenced our WG and work in its March 2015 public consultation concerning its proposed accreditation of privacy and proxy services for the .uk ccTLD. While this doesn¹t show the level of awareness in the broad user community, the hope is of course that concerned stakeholders will have drawn wider attention to the issues throughout the WG process. Nevertheless, WG members¹ suggestions as to how greater outreach beyond current efforts (which would include publicity on social media, via blog posts and the like) are welcome. FYI - the chairs and staff have also discussed using online tools and other ways that we can better direct public attention to the specific recommendations contained in the full Report. The WG may wish to consider whether these additional efforts could be more focused and helpful than merely extending the public comment period. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 20:30 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines
Hi Kiran, Because it is important. It is the initial report that lays out our ideas and synthesis, achieved from so much cooperation and compromise, to the world to evaluate and comment on. Because we have 100+ pages of complicated text, and we know there are many communities who would like to review this material if they had the time, it seems reasonable to give it to them. Best, Kathy :
Then why are you pressing for more time for the initial report?
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Getting people engaged prior to the final report wastes the very little precious time they have to devote to the exercise, in my experience. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-04-28 7:20, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: Outreach is very important, you're right. Where has everyone been that they are only just thinking about outreach now at the initial report stage? This group has been working for an AGE.
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoront o.ca>> wrote:
It is indeed very discouraging that there is so little interest outside ICANN insiders. However, a longer timeframe gives us time to do the outreach to busy individuals and organizations, and attempt to attract their interest. Posting on the ICANN website is not enough. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-04-28 6:22, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: Hi Kathy,
I agree with you that more people outside of ICANN should provide input and review our report but as you know that is a hard thing to actually have occur. The EWG was composed of several people either on the fringe of the ICANN community or completely outside of it to start. Stephanie is the only one that truly dug in and got involved. We also reached out to many different groups for input as we were drafting our report and received very little in return.
The IANA transition has brought more interest to ICANN than previously but I do not see an uptick in comments from those outside of ICANN on other issues.
Not sure adding time to the comment period will gain much. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines
Hi All, Do I understand correctly that we are putting out a 100+ page report on a complex subject for review by the ICANN Community - and world community - *before Buenos Aires*?? That seems awfully tight if we want substantive comments - and the outreach to participate -- that a WG presentation/discussion in Buenos Aires would encourage (and the web presence it would create). We (in the WG) have talked about these issues a lot - but have others outside our WG followed these them with so many other things in motion?
In the Whois Review Team we heard a lot of complaints from individuals, organizations, data protection and law enforcement offices that ICANN's proceeding are difficult to follow and even more difficult to participate in -- in large part because the rapid comment timeframes are not conducive to global outreach or the timelines needed to encourage substantive and thoughtful comments (especially by government entities). We issued a recommendation that on Whois issues, in particular, we have to do more...
WHOIS Review Team Final Report Recommendation 3 - Outreach ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness.
I think we should allow two months to respond -- at a minimum. Best, Kathy
On 4/23/2015 6:31 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear WG members,
Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG¹s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E).
All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw.
We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other consequent changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones.
As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April).
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https:// mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
You're right it is important. Important enough to have continuously educated or at least informed the relevant communities we purport to represent. You don't have to drag people into a 72 meeting process to keep them aware of the situation. Delaying now robs us of a valuable opportunity to actually be productive in Buenos Aires. It may be 100 pages, but it ain't rocket science. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:47 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Hi Kiran, Because it is important. It is the initial report that lays out our ideas and synthesis, achieved from so much cooperation and compromise, to the world to evaluate and comment on. Because we have 100+ pages of complicated text, and we know there are many communities who would like to review this material if they had the time, it seems reasonable to give it to them. Best, Kathy :
Then why are you pressing for more time for the initial report?
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Getting people engaged prior to the final report wastes the very little precious time they have to devote to the exercise, in my experience. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-04-28 7:20, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: Outreach is very important, you're right. Where has everyone been that they are only just thinking about outreach now at the initial report stage? This group has been working for an AGE.
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
It is indeed very discouraging that there is so little interest outside ICANN insiders. However, a longer timeframe gives us time to do the outreach to busy individuals and organizations, and attempt to attract their interest. Posting on the ICANN website is not enough. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-04-28 6:22, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: Hi Kathy,
I agree with you that more people outside of ICANN should provide input and review our report but as you know that is a hard thing to actually have occur. The EWG was composed of several people either on the fringe of the ICANN community or completely outside of it to start. Stephanie is the only one that truly dug in and got involved. We also reached out to many different groups for input as we were drafting our report and received very little in return.
The IANA transition has brought more interest to ICANN than previously but I do not see an uptick in comments from those outside of ICANN on other issues.
Not sure adding time to the comment period will gain much. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines
Hi All, Do I understand correctly that we are putting out a 100+ page report on a complex subject for review by the ICANN Community - and world community - *before Buenos Aires*?? That seems awfully tight if we want substantive comments - and the outreach to participate -- that a WG presentation/discussion in Buenos Aires would encourage (and the web presence it would create). We (in the WG) have talked about these issues a lot - but have others outside our WG followed these them with so many other things in motion?
In the Whois Review Team we heard a lot of complaints from individuals, organizations, data protection and law enforcement offices that ICANN's proceeding are difficult to follow and even more difficult to participate in -- in large part because the rapid comment timeframes are not conducive to global outreach or the timelines needed to encourage substantive and thoughtful comments (especially by government entities). We issued a recommendation that on Whois issues, in particular, we have to do more...
WHOIS Review Team Final Report Recommendation 3 - Outreach ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness.
I think we should allow two months to respond -- at a minimum. Best, Kathy
On 4/23/2015 6:31 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear WG members,
Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG’s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E).
All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw.
We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other – consequent – changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes – one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones.
As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April).
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
With all due respect Kiran to the thousands of at risk registrants it may well be rocket science. This policy to people who are not involved in policy development can be rocket science, its a complex policy and one with far reaching consequences on people who have very little idea how policies at ICANN work, they just want to get on with the work that they do. On last weeks call many of us felt that even with the current timeline for public comments that we may not be in a position to have much contrstructive work out of the PC comment in BA anyway and we agreed that we would revisit timing on this weeks call. So lets just remember that we are making choices and decisions that are going to imact a lot of people with this policy, and while people who do this for a living, or those of us who give up our free time to work on stuff like this we have gotten used to the wording and the guts of the policy, for many people they will read the initial report and give us feedback and that will be their only interaction as they don’t have the option to be involved in the process at any other point as they don’t have the spare cycles in their very bust lives. On 28/04/2015 02:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Delaying now robs us of a valuable opportunity to actually be productive in Buenos Aires. It may be 100 pages, but it ain't rocket science.
So please enlighten us James and Kathy, what would be a better timeline to ensure that everyone that could be impacted by this policy can review, understand and respond? Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
With all due respect Kiran to the thousands of at risk registrants it may well be rocket science.
This policy to people who are not involved in policy development can be rocket science, its a complex policy and one with far reaching consequences on people who have very little idea how policies at ICANN work, they just want to get on with the work that they do.
On last weeks call many of us felt that even with the current timeline for public comments that we may not be in a position to have much contrstructive work out of the PC comment in BA anyway and we agreed that we would revisit timing on this weeks call.
So lets just remember that we are making choices and decisions that are going to imact a lot of people with this policy, and while people who do this for a living, or those of us who give up our free time to work on stuff like this we have gotten used to the wording and the guts of the policy, for many people they will read the initial report and give us feedback and that will be their only interaction as they don’t have the option to be involved in the process at any other point as they don’t have the spare cycles in their very bust lives.
On 28/04/2015 02:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Delaying now robs us of a valuable opportunity to actually be productive in Buenos Aires. It may be 100 pages, but it ain't rocket science.
My suggestion would be 60 days. To give some context to my own request/suggestion, for this specific policy a quick count of people and groups that I have advised to use proxy services to protect their identity and thus I would need to bring them up to speed: 24 Registered charities, 9 countries, 2 don’t speak any English and I would need to organise our trusted translator for both of them. Each of those need between 30-60 minutes as their level of technical expertise varies. So lets call that 18 hours of engagement. Approximately 55 independent activists, people who are at extremely high risk and need to be fully aware of the potential impact of this on their work. However that number may be 54 as I haven’t heard from a good friend of mine in Kathmandu since the earthquake so maybe I can knock a day off my 60 day request for that? These guys are in over 20 countries, approximately half don’t speak English or French, so again for some I will need a translator to be organised. I would guess about an hour for each of them, so that another 54 hours. About 5 at risk business here in Ireland, ranging from sexual abuse support groups to womens support groups. As they are local to me I can probably do a group session, another 2 hours. So that’s 74 hours of engagement directly, add another 16 hours of admin to that to get a round number, 90 hours of engagement. So 2.25 hours a day for 40 days. Working 7 days a week. All of my at risk support is pro-bono so my day job comes first as I have to support my family and keep a roof over my head. That takes up 10-12 hours of my working weekdays. Throw in some sleep of which I get very little and trying to juggle pro-bono translators, availability of the people in question and you can see that yes 40 days can suddenly start looking quite tight to get feedback from the people who are going to be affected by this. I 100% understand that people want to get this finished and done with, I’m not disputing that at all, but lets just pause for a moment and realise the amount of work that true outreach is for those of us who are working here probono. Can it be done in 40 days? Yes. If further time is available will I request it? Yes. The world of ICANN isn’t going to fall apart with an extra 20 days on public comment but allowing the public, and especially those who are going to be directly affected by this policy, to have their say on the draft report is as master card would say ‘priceless’. I hope that gives you some feeling of the enormity of some of the outreach that will be going on behind the scenes from my side of things, and I’m not the only one facing such a task! Now that’s enough of a wall of text for today =) Speak to you all on todays call. -James On 28/04/2015 09:53, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
So please enlighten us James and Kathy, what would be a better timeline to ensure that everyone that could be impacted by this policy can review, understand and respond?
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
With all due respect Kiran to the thousands of at risk registrants it may well be rocket science.
This policy to people who are not involved in policy development can be rocket science, its a complex policy and one with far reaching consequences on people who have very little idea how policies at ICANN work, they just want to get on with the work that they do.
On last weeks call many of us felt that even with the current timeline for public comments that we may not be in a position to have much contrstructive work out of the PC comment in BA anyway and we agreed that we would revisit timing on this weeks call.
So lets just remember that we are making choices and decisions that are going to imact a lot of people with this policy, and while people who do this for a living, or those of us who give up our free time to work on stuff like this we have gotten used to the wording and the guts of the policy, for many people they will read the initial report and give us feedback and that will be their only interaction as they don’t have the option to be involved in the process at any other point as they don’t have the spare cycles in their very bust lives.
On 28/04/2015 02:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Delaying now robs us of a valuable opportunity to actually be productive in Buenos Aires. It may be 100 pages, but it ain't rocket science.
James 60 days seems sane to me and I’d support it. Also thanks for sharing your detailed rationale - it’s very helpful to provide context Is mise le meas Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 28/04/2015 10:42, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
My suggestion would be 60 days. To give some context to my own request/suggestion, for this specific policy a quick count of people and groups that I have advised to use proxy services to protect their identity and thus I would need to bring them up to speed:
24 Registered charities, 9 countries, 2 don’t speak any English and I would need to organise our trusted translator for both of them. Each of those need between 30-60 minutes as their level of technical expertise varies. So lets call that 18 hours of engagement.
Approximately 55 independent activists, people who are at extremely high risk and need to be fully aware of the potential impact of this on their work. However that number may be 54 as I haven’t heard from a good friend of mine in Kathmandu since the earthquake so maybe I can knock a day off my 60 day request for that? These guys are in over 20 countries, approximately half don’t speak English or French, so again for some I will need a translator to be organised. I would guess about an hour for each of them, so that another 54 hours.
About 5 at risk business here in Ireland, ranging from sexual abuse support groups to womens support groups. As they are local to me I can probably do a group session, another 2 hours.
So that’s 74 hours of engagement directly, add another 16 hours of admin to that to get a round number, 90 hours of engagement. So 2.25 hours a day for 40 days. Working 7 days a week. All of my at risk support is pro-bono so my day job comes first as I have to support my family and keep a roof over my head. That takes up 10-12 hours of my working weekdays. Throw in some sleep of which I get very little and trying to juggle pro-bono translators, availability of the people in question and you can see that yes 40 days can suddenly start looking quite tight to get feedback from the people who are going to be affected by this.
I 100% understand that people want to get this finished and done with, I’m not disputing that at all, but lets just pause for a moment and realise the amount of work that true outreach is for those of us who are working here probono. Can it be done in 40 days? Yes. If further time is available will I request it? Yes.
The world of ICANN isn’t going to fall apart with an extra 20 days on public comment but allowing the public, and especially those who are going to be directly affected by this policy, to have their say on the draft report is as master card would say ‘priceless’.
I hope that gives you some feeling of the enormity of some of the outreach that will be going on behind the scenes from my side of things, and I’m not the only one facing such a task!
Now that’s enough of a wall of text for today =) Speak to you all on todays call.
-James
On 28/04/2015 09:53, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
So please enlighten us James and Kathy, what would be a better timeline to ensure that everyone that could be impacted by this policy can review, understand and respond?
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
With all due respect Kiran to the thousands of at risk registrants it may well be rocket science.
This policy to people who are not involved in policy development can be rocket science, its a complex policy and one with far reaching consequences on people who have very little idea how policies at ICANN work, they just want to get on with the work that they do.
On last weeks call many of us felt that even with the current timeline for public comments that we may not be in a position to have much contrstructive work out of the PC comment in BA anyway and we agreed that we would revisit timing on this weeks call.
So lets just remember that we are making choices and decisions that are going to imact a lot of people with this policy, and while people who do this for a living, or those of us who give up our free time to work on stuff like this we have gotten used to the wording and the guts of the policy, for many people they will read the initial report and give us feedback and that will be their only interaction as they don’t have the option to be involved in the process at any other point as they don’t have the spare cycles in their very bust lives.
On 28/04/2015 02:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Delaying now robs us of a valuable opportunity to actually be productive in Buenos Aires. It may be 100 pages, but it ain't rocket science.
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1 for the time. This subject matter is complex with lots of crevices. Let's err on the side of caution and give it time for people, even a few more, to engage. Its the right thing to do. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
James
60 days seems sane to me and I’d support it.
Also thanks for sharing your detailed rationale - it’s very helpful to provide context
Is mise le meas
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 28/04/2015 10:42, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
My suggestion would be 60 days. To give some context to my own request/suggestion, for this specific policy a quick count of people and groups that I have advised to use proxy services to protect their identity and thus I would need to bring them up to speed:
24 Registered charities, 9 countries, 2 don’t speak any English and I would need to organise our trusted translator for both of them. Each of those need between 30-60 minutes as their level of technical expertise varies. So lets call that 18 hours of engagement.
Approximately 55 independent activists, people who are at extremely high risk and need to be fully aware of the potential impact of this on their work. However that number may be 54 as I haven’t heard from a good friend of mine in Kathmandu since the earthquake so maybe I can knock a day off my 60 day request for that? These guys are in over 20 countries, approximately half don’t speak English or French, so again for some I will need a translator to be organised. I would guess about an hour for each of them, so that another 54 hours.
About 5 at risk business here in Ireland, ranging from sexual abuse support groups to womens support groups. As they are local to me I can probably do a group session, another 2 hours.
So that’s 74 hours of engagement directly, add another 16 hours of admin to that to get a round number, 90 hours of engagement. So 2.25 hours a day for 40 days. Working 7 days a week. All of my at risk support is pro-bono so my day job comes first as I have to support my family and keep a roof over my head. That takes up 10-12 hours of my working weekdays. Throw in some sleep of which I get very little and trying to juggle pro-bono translators, availability of the people in question and you can see that yes 40 days can suddenly start looking quite tight to get feedback from the people who are going to be affected by this.
I 100% understand that people want to get this finished and done with, I’m not disputing that at all, but lets just pause for a moment and realise the amount of work that true outreach is for those of us who are working here probono. Can it be done in 40 days? Yes. If further time is available will I request it? Yes.
The world of ICANN isn’t going to fall apart with an extra 20 days on public comment but allowing the public, and especially those who are going to be directly affected by this policy, to have their say on the draft report is as master card would say ‘priceless’.
I hope that gives you some feeling of the enormity of some of the outreach that will be going on behind the scenes from my side of things, and I’m not the only one facing such a task!
Now that’s enough of a wall of text for today =) Speak to you all on todays call.
-James
On 28/04/2015 09:53, "Kiran Malancharuvil" < Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
So please enlighten us James and Kathy, what would be a better timeline to ensure that everyone that could be impacted by this policy can review, understand and respond?
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
With all due respect Kiran to the thousands of at risk registrants it may well be rocket science.
This policy to people who are not involved in policy development can be rocket science, its a complex policy and one with far reaching consequences on people who have very little idea how policies at ICANN work, they just want to get on with the work that they do.
On last weeks call many of us felt that even with the current timeline for public comments that we may not be in a position to have much contrstructive work out of the PC comment in BA anyway and we agreed that we would revisit timing on this weeks call.
So lets just remember that we are making choices and decisions that are going to imact a lot of people with this policy, and while people who do this for a living, or those of us who give up our free time to work on stuff like this we have gotten used to the wording and the guts of the policy, for many people they will read the initial report and give us feedback and that will be their only interaction as they don’t have the option to be involved in the process at any other point as they don’t have the spare cycles in their very bust lives.
On 28/04/2015 02:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil" < Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Delaying now robs us of a valuable opportunity to actually be productive in Buenos Aires. It may be 100 pages, but it ain't rocket science.
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1 James. Kathy:
My suggestion would be 60 days. To give some context to my own request/suggestion, for this specific policy a quick count of people and groups that I have advised to use proxy services to protect their identity and thus I would need to bring them up to speed:
24 Registered charities, 9 countries, 2 don’t speak any English and I would need to organise our trusted translator for both of them. Each of those need between 30-60 minutes as their level of technical expertise varies. So lets call that 18 hours of engagement.
Approximately 55 independent activists, people who are at extremely high risk and need to be fully aware of the potential impact of this on their work. However that number may be 54 as I haven’t heard from a good friend of mine in Kathmandu since the earthquake so maybe I can knock a day off my 60 day request for that? These guys are in over 20 countries, approximately half don’t speak English or French, so again for some I will need a translator to be organised. I would guess about an hour for each of them, so that another 54 hours.
About 5 at risk business here in Ireland, ranging from sexual abuse support groups to womens support groups. As they are local to me I can probably do a group session, another 2 hours.
So that’s 74 hours of engagement directly, add another 16 hours of admin to that to get a round number, 90 hours of engagement. So 2.25 hours a day for 40 days. Working 7 days a week. All of my at risk support is pro-bono so my day job comes first as I have to support my family and keep a roof over my head. That takes up 10-12 hours of my working weekdays. Throw in some sleep of which I get very little and trying to juggle pro-bono translators, availability of the people in question and you can see that yes 40 days can suddenly start looking quite tight to get feedback from the people who are going to be affected by this.
I 100% understand that people want to get this finished and done with, I’m not disputing that at all, but lets just pause for a moment and realise the amount of work that true outreach is for those of us who are working here probono. Can it be done in 40 days? Yes. If further time is available will I request it? Yes.
The world of ICANN isn’t going to fall apart with an extra 20 days on public comment but allowing the public, and especially those who are going to be directly affected by this policy, to have their say on the draft report is as master card would say ‘priceless’.
I hope that gives you some feeling of the enormity of some of the outreach that will be going on behind the scenes from my side of things, and I’m not the only one facing such a task!
Now that’s enough of a wall of text for today =) Speak to you all on todays call.
-James
On 28/04/2015 09:53, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
So please enlighten us James and Kathy, what would be a better timeline to ensure that everyone that could be impacted by this policy can review, understand and respond?
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
With all due respect Kiran to the thousands of at risk registrants it may well be rocket science.
This policy to people who are not involved in policy development can be rocket science, its a complex policy and one with far reaching consequences on people who have very little idea how policies at ICANN work, they just want to get on with the work that they do.
On last weeks call many of us felt that even with the current timeline for public comments that we may not be in a position to have much contrstructive work out of the PC comment in BA anyway and we agreed that we would revisit timing on this weeks call.
So lets just remember that we are making choices and decisions that are going to imact a lot of people with this policy, and while people who do this for a living, or those of us who give up our free time to work on stuff like this we have gotten used to the wording and the guts of the policy, for many people they will read the initial report and give us feedback and that will be their only interaction as they don’t have the option to be involved in the process at any other point as they don’t have the spare cycles in their very bust lives.
On 28/04/2015 02:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Delaying now robs us of a valuable opportunity to actually be productive in Buenos Aires. It may be 100 pages, but it ain't rocket science.
+1 Other James. J. On 4/28/15, 7:28 , "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
+1 James. Kathy:
My suggestion would be 60 days. To give some context to my own request/suggestion, for this specific policy a quick count of people and groups that I have advised to use proxy services to protect their identity and thus I would need to bring them up to speed:
24 Registered charities, 9 countries, 2 don¹t speak any English and I would need to organise our trusted translator for both of them. Each of those need between 30-60 minutes as their level of technical expertise varies. So lets call that 18 hours of engagement.
Approximately 55 independent activists, people who are at extremely high risk and need to be fully aware of the potential impact of this on their work. However that number may be 54 as I haven¹t heard from a good friend of mine in Kathmandu since the earthquake so maybe I can knock a day off my 60 day request for that? These guys are in over 20 countries, approximately half don¹t speak English or French, so again for some I will need a translator to be organised. I would guess about an hour for each of them, so that another 54 hours.
About 5 at risk business here in Ireland, ranging from sexual abuse support groups to womens support groups. As they are local to me I can probably do a group session, another 2 hours.
So that¹s 74 hours of engagement directly, add another 16 hours of admin to that to get a round number, 90 hours of engagement. So 2.25 hours a day for 40 days. Working 7 days a week. All of my at risk support is pro-bono so my day job comes first as I have to support my family and keep a roof over my head. That takes up 10-12 hours of my working weekdays. Throw in some sleep of which I get very little and trying to juggle pro-bono translators, availability of the people in question and you can see that yes 40 days can suddenly start looking quite tight to get feedback from the people who are going to be affected by this.
I 100% understand that people want to get this finished and done with, I¹m not disputing that at all, but lets just pause for a moment and realise the amount of work that true outreach is for those of us who are working here probono. Can it be done in 40 days? Yes. If further time is available will I request it? Yes.
The world of ICANN isn¹t going to fall apart with an extra 20 days on public comment but allowing the public, and especially those who are going to be directly affected by this policy, to have their say on the draft report is as master card would say Œpriceless¹.
I hope that gives you some feeling of the enormity of some of the outreach that will be going on behind the scenes from my side of things, and I¹m not the only one facing such a task!
Now that¹s enough of a wall of text for today =) Speak to you all on todays call.
-James
On 28/04/2015 09:53, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
So please enlighten us James and Kathy, what would be a better timeline to ensure that everyone that could be impacted by this policy can review, understand and respond?
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
With all due respect Kiran to the thousands of at risk registrants it may well be rocket science.
This policy to people who are not involved in policy development can be rocket science, its a complex policy and one with far reaching consequences on people who have very little idea how policies at ICANN work, they just want to get on with the work that they do.
On last weeks call many of us felt that even with the current timeline for public comments that we may not be in a position to have much contrstructive work out of the PC comment in BA anyway and we agreed that we would revisit timing on this weeks call.
So lets just remember that we are making choices and decisions that are going to imact a lot of people with this policy, and while people who do this for a living, or those of us who give up our free time to work on stuff like this we have gotten used to the wording and the guts of the policy, for many people they will read the initial report and give us feedback and that will be their only interaction as they don¹t have the option to be involved in the process at any other point as they don¹t have the spare cycles in their very bust lives.
On 28/04/2015 02:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Delaying now robs us of a valuable opportunity to actually be productive in Buenos Aires. It may be 100 pages, but it ain't rocket science.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+ 1 James, Michele, Kathy, Stephanie. Holly On 28 Apr 2015, at 10:28 pm, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
+1 James. Kathy:
My suggestion would be 60 days. To give some context to my own request/suggestion, for this specific policy a quick count of people and groups that I have advised to use proxy services to protect their identity and thus I would need to bring them up to speed:
24 Registered charities, 9 countries, 2 don’t speak any English and I would need to organise our trusted translator for both of them. Each of those need between 30-60 minutes as their level of technical expertise varies. So lets call that 18 hours of engagement.
Approximately 55 independent activists, people who are at extremely high risk and need to be fully aware of the potential impact of this on their work. However that number may be 54 as I haven’t heard from a good friend of mine in Kathmandu since the earthquake so maybe I can knock a day off my 60 day request for that? These guys are in over 20 countries, approximately half don’t speak English or French, so again for some I will need a translator to be organised. I would guess about an hour for each of them, so that another 54 hours.
About 5 at risk business here in Ireland, ranging from sexual abuse support groups to womens support groups. As they are local to me I can probably do a group session, another 2 hours.
So that’s 74 hours of engagement directly, add another 16 hours of admin to that to get a round number, 90 hours of engagement. So 2.25 hours a day for 40 days. Working 7 days a week. All of my at risk support is pro-bono so my day job comes first as I have to support my family and keep a roof over my head. That takes up 10-12 hours of my working weekdays. Throw in some sleep of which I get very little and trying to juggle pro-bono translators, availability of the people in question and you can see that yes 40 days can suddenly start looking quite tight to get feedback from the people who are going to be affected by this.
I 100% understand that people want to get this finished and done with, I’m not disputing that at all, but lets just pause for a moment and realise the amount of work that true outreach is for those of us who are working here probono. Can it be done in 40 days? Yes. If further time is available will I request it? Yes.
The world of ICANN isn’t going to fall apart with an extra 20 days on public comment but allowing the public, and especially those who are going to be directly affected by this policy, to have their say on the draft report is as master card would say ‘priceless’.
I hope that gives you some feeling of the enormity of some of the outreach that will be going on behind the scenes from my side of things, and I’m not the only one facing such a task!
Now that’s enough of a wall of text for today =) Speak to you all on todays call.
-James
On 28/04/2015 09:53, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
So please enlighten us James and Kathy, what would be a better timeline to ensure that everyone that could be impacted by this policy can review, understand and respond?
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
With all due respect Kiran to the thousands of at risk registrants it may well be rocket science.
This policy to people who are not involved in policy development can be rocket science, its a complex policy and one with far reaching consequences on people who have very little idea how policies at ICANN work, they just want to get on with the work that they do.
On last weeks call many of us felt that even with the current timeline for public comments that we may not be in a position to have much contrstructive work out of the PC comment in BA anyway and we agreed that we would revisit timing on this weeks call.
So lets just remember that we are making choices and decisions that are going to imact a lot of people with this policy, and while people who do this for a living, or those of us who give up our free time to work on stuff like this we have gotten used to the wording and the guts of the policy, for many people they will read the initial report and give us feedback and that will be their only interaction as they don’t have the option to be involved in the process at any other point as they don’t have the spare cycles in their very bust lives.
On 28/04/2015 02:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Delaying now robs us of a valuable opportunity to actually be productive in Buenos Aires. It may be 100 pages, but it ain't rocket science.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1 to both theJames, Michele, Kathy, Stephanie, and Holly Thanks, Darcy From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 6:11 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines + 1 James, Michele, Kathy, Stephanie. Holly On 28 Apr 2015, at 10:28 pm, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
+1 James. Kathy:
My suggestion would be 60 days. To give some context to my own request/suggestion, for this specific policy a quick count of people and groups that I have advised to use proxy services to protect their identity and thus I would need to bring them up to speed:
24 Registered charities, 9 countries, 2 don¹t speak any English and I would need to organise our trusted translator for both of them. Each of those need between 30-60 minutes as their level of technical expertise varies. So lets call that 18 hours of engagement.
Approximately 55 independent activists, people who are at extremely high risk and need to be fully aware of the potential impact of this on their work. However that number may be 54 as I haven¹t heard from a good friend of mine in Kathmandu since the earthquake so maybe I can knock a day off my 60 day request for that? These guys are in over 20 countries, approximately half don¹t speak English or French, so again for some I will need a translator to be organised. I would guess about an hour for each of them, so that another 54 hours.
About 5 at risk business here in Ireland, ranging from sexual abuse support groups to womens support groups. As they are local to me I can probably do a group session, another 2 hours.
So that¹s 74 hours of engagement directly, add another 16 hours of admin to that to get a round number, 90 hours of engagement. So 2.25 hours a day for 40 days. Working 7 days a week. All of my at risk support is pro-bono so my day job comes first as I have to support my family and keep a roof over my head. That takes up 10-12 hours of my working weekdays. Throw in some sleep of which I get very little and trying to juggle pro-bono translators, availability of the people in question and you can see that yes 40 days can suddenly start looking quite tight to get feedback from the people who are going to be affected by this.
I 100% understand that people want to get this finished and done with, I¹m not disputing that at all, but lets just pause for a moment and realise the amount of work that true outreach is for those of us who are working here probono. Can it be done in 40 days? Yes. If further time is available will I request it? Yes.
The world of ICANN isn¹t going to fall apart with an extra 20 days on public comment but allowing the public, and especially those who are going to be directly affected by this policy, to have their say on the draft report is as master card would say priceless¹.
I hope that gives you some feeling of the enormity of some of the outreach that will be going on behind the scenes from my side of things, and I¹m not the only one facing such a task!
Now that¹s enough of a wall of text for today =) Speak to you all on todays call.
-James
On 28/04/2015 09:53, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
So please enlighten us James and Kathy, what would be a better timeline to ensure that everyone that could be impacted by this policy can review, understand and respond?
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
With all due respect Kiran to the thousands of at risk registrants it may well be rocket science.
This policy to people who are not involved in policy development can be rocket science, its a complex policy and one with far reaching consequences on people who have very little idea how policies at ICANN work, they just want to get on with the work that they do.
On last weeks call many of us felt that even with the current timeline for public comments that we may not be in a position to have much contrstructive work out of the PC comment in BA anyway and we agreed that we would revisit timing on this weeks call.
So lets just remember that we are making choices and decisions that are going to imact a lot of people with this policy, and while people who do this for a living, or those of us who give up our free time to work on stuff like this we have gotten used to the wording and the guts of the policy, for many people they will read the initial report and give us feedback and that will be their only interaction as they don¹t have the option to be involved in the process at any other point as they don¹t have the spare cycles in their very bust lives.
On 28/04/2015 02:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Delaying now robs us of a valuable opportunity to actually be productive in Buenos Aires. It may be 100 pages, but it ain't rocket science.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
And another thought - the existing specification does not expire until 2017. So I think there is a bit of spare time….. Holly On 28 Apr 2015, at 10:28 pm, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
+1 James. Kathy:
My suggestion would be 60 days. To give some context to my own request/suggestion, for this specific policy a quick count of people and groups that I have advised to use proxy services to protect their identity and thus I would need to bring them up to speed:
24 Registered charities, 9 countries, 2 don’t speak any English and I would need to organise our trusted translator for both of them. Each of those need between 30-60 minutes as their level of technical expertise varies. So lets call that 18 hours of engagement.
Approximately 55 independent activists, people who are at extremely high risk and need to be fully aware of the potential impact of this on their work. However that number may be 54 as I haven’t heard from a good friend of mine in Kathmandu since the earthquake so maybe I can knock a day off my 60 day request for that? These guys are in over 20 countries, approximately half don’t speak English or French, so again for some I will need a translator to be organised. I would guess about an hour for each of them, so that another 54 hours.
About 5 at risk business here in Ireland, ranging from sexual abuse support groups to womens support groups. As they are local to me I can probably do a group session, another 2 hours.
So that’s 74 hours of engagement directly, add another 16 hours of admin to that to get a round number, 90 hours of engagement. So 2.25 hours a day for 40 days. Working 7 days a week. All of my at risk support is pro-bono so my day job comes first as I have to support my family and keep a roof over my head. That takes up 10-12 hours of my working weekdays. Throw in some sleep of which I get very little and trying to juggle pro-bono translators, availability of the people in question and you can see that yes 40 days can suddenly start looking quite tight to get feedback from the people who are going to be affected by this.
I 100% understand that people want to get this finished and done with, I’m not disputing that at all, but lets just pause for a moment and realise the amount of work that true outreach is for those of us who are working here probono. Can it be done in 40 days? Yes. If further time is available will I request it? Yes.
The world of ICANN isn’t going to fall apart with an extra 20 days on public comment but allowing the public, and especially those who are going to be directly affected by this policy, to have their say on the draft report is as master card would say ‘priceless’.
I hope that gives you some feeling of the enormity of some of the outreach that will be going on behind the scenes from my side of things, and I’m not the only one facing such a task!
Now that’s enough of a wall of text for today =) Speak to you all on todays call.
-James
On 28/04/2015 09:53, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
So please enlighten us James and Kathy, what would be a better timeline to ensure that everyone that could be impacted by this policy can review, understand and respond?
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
With all due respect Kiran to the thousands of at risk registrants it may well be rocket science.
This policy to people who are not involved in policy development can be rocket science, its a complex policy and one with far reaching consequences on people who have very little idea how policies at ICANN work, they just want to get on with the work that they do.
On last weeks call many of us felt that even with the current timeline for public comments that we may not be in a position to have much contrstructive work out of the PC comment in BA anyway and we agreed that we would revisit timing on this weeks call.
So lets just remember that we are making choices and decisions that are going to imact a lot of people with this policy, and while people who do this for a living, or those of us who give up our free time to work on stuff like this we have gotten used to the wording and the guts of the policy, for many people they will read the initial report and give us feedback and that will be their only interaction as they don’t have the option to be involved in the process at any other point as they don’t have the spare cycles in their very bust lives.
On 28/04/2015 02:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Delaying now robs us of a valuable opportunity to actually be productive in Buenos Aires. It may be 100 pages, but it ain't rocket science.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Glad to hear that timing isn't as big of a problem for folks as was presented in light of some other issues we were discussing in Singapore. It's very interesting to see the about-face from some constituencies/SGs about the inadequacy of the length of public comment periods at ICANN in general. Am looking forward to your support the next time the CSG proposes a lasting change on this issue. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 28, 2015, at 6:17 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
And another thought - the existing specification does not expire until 2017. So I think there is a bit of spare time…..
Holly
On 28 Apr 2015, at 10:28 pm, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
+1 James. Kathy:
My suggestion would be 60 days. To give some context to my own request/suggestion, for this specific policy a quick count of people and groups that I have advised to use proxy services to protect their identity and thus I would need to bring them up to speed:
24 Registered charities, 9 countries, 2 don’t speak any English and I would need to organise our trusted translator for both of them. Each of those need between 30-60 minutes as their level of technical expertise varies. So lets call that 18 hours of engagement.
Approximately 55 independent activists, people who are at extremely high risk and need to be fully aware of the potential impact of this on their work. However that number may be 54 as I haven’t heard from a good friend of mine in Kathmandu since the earthquake so maybe I can knock a day off my 60 day request for that? These guys are in over 20 countries, approximately half don’t speak English or French, so again for some I will need a translator to be organised. I would guess about an hour for each of them, so that another 54 hours.
About 5 at risk business here in Ireland, ranging from sexual abuse support groups to womens support groups. As they are local to me I can probably do a group session, another 2 hours.
So that’s 74 hours of engagement directly, add another 16 hours of admin to that to get a round number, 90 hours of engagement. So 2.25 hours a day for 40 days. Working 7 days a week. All of my at risk support is pro-bono so my day job comes first as I have to support my family and keep a roof over my head. That takes up 10-12 hours of my working weekdays. Throw in some sleep of which I get very little and trying to juggle pro-bono translators, availability of the people in question and you can see that yes 40 days can suddenly start looking quite tight to get feedback from the people who are going to be affected by this.
I 100% understand that people want to get this finished and done with, I’m not disputing that at all, but lets just pause for a moment and realise the amount of work that true outreach is for those of us who are working here probono. Can it be done in 40 days? Yes. If further time is available will I request it? Yes.
The world of ICANN isn’t going to fall apart with an extra 20 days on public comment but allowing the public, and especially those who are going to be directly affected by this policy, to have their say on the draft report is as master card would say ‘priceless’.
I hope that gives you some feeling of the enormity of some of the outreach that will be going on behind the scenes from my side of things, and I’m not the only one facing such a task!
Now that’s enough of a wall of text for today =) Speak to you all on todays call.
-James
On 28/04/2015 09:53, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
So please enlighten us James and Kathy, what would be a better timeline to ensure that everyone that could be impacted by this policy can review, understand and respond?
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
With all due respect Kiran to the thousands of at risk registrants it may well be rocket science.
This policy to people who are not involved in policy development can be rocket science, its a complex policy and one with far reaching consequences on people who have very little idea how policies at ICANN work, they just want to get on with the work that they do.
On last weeks call many of us felt that even with the current timeline for public comments that we may not be in a position to have much contrstructive work out of the PC comment in BA anyway and we agreed that we would revisit timing on this weeks call.
So lets just remember that we are making choices and decisions that are going to imact a lot of people with this policy, and while people who do this for a living, or those of us who give up our free time to work on stuff like this we have gotten used to the wording and the guts of the policy, for many people they will read the initial report and give us feedback and that will be their only interaction as they don’t have the option to be involved in the process at any other point as they don’t have the spare cycles in their very bust lives.
On 28/04/2015 02:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Delaying now robs us of a valuable opportunity to actually be productive in Buenos Aires. It may be 100 pages, but it ain't rocket science.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Kiran I can’t speak for everyone else, but unless there’s something for people to actually read - be that an interim report or a final one, then getting people to engage on something is quite hard. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
As usual, I agree with Kathy. This is not enough time for those who are not following ICANN's rather arcane machinations, yet will be impacted by this accreditation scheme. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-04-28 5:43, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi All, Do I understand correctly that we are putting out a 100+ page report on a complex subject for review by the ICANN Community - and world community - *before Buenos Aires*?? That seems awfully tight if we want substantive comments - and the outreach to participate -- that a WG presentation/discussion in Buenos Aires would encourage (and the web presence it would create). We (in the WG) have talked about these issues a lot - but have others outside our WG followed these them with so many other things in motion?
In the Whois Review Team we heard a lot of complaints from individuals, organizations, data protection and law enforcement offices that ICANN's proceeding are difficult to follow and even more difficult to participate in -- in large part because the rapid comment timeframes are not conducive to global outreach or the timelines needed to encourage substantive and thoughtful comments (especially by government entities). We issued a recommendation that on Whois issues, in particular, we have to do more...
*WHOIS Review Team Final Report** */Recommendation 3 - Outreach// /ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness.
I think we should allow two months to respond -- at a minimum. Best, Kathy
On 4/23/2015 6:31 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear WG members,
Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG’s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E).
All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw.
We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other – consequent – changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes – one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones.
As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April).
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
participants (11)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Darcy Southwell -
Holly Raiche -
James Gannon -
James M. Bladel -
Kathy Kleiman -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Mary Wong -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Stephanie Perrin -
Susan Kawaguchi