NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery
Greetings. Being a member of the NCSG I received this planning note regarding the draft NCUC agendas for Prague. With apologies for cross posting, I wanted to raise two points: One, the NCUC is considering the fairness of digital archery as an issue. From what I heard on yesterday's NARALO call, we don't consider it a public-interest issue (which, as you know, I disagree with, in other words, I agree with the NCUC. Two, the NCUC is planning for Toronto. So, I ask: Rather than remaining in silos, is there anything we can do to a) reach out to the NCUC on digital archery, in case some of us are of the same opinion, with the possibility some joint support can be lent? And: Can we get with them on Toronto and possibly plan something together? We did do some joint event planning in San Francisco, which resulted in the well-attended Internet Town Hall. Just a thought -- strength in numbers. Beau -----Forwarded Message-----
From: William Drake <william.drake@UZH.CH> Sent: Jun 19, 2012 1:29 AM To: NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCUC meeting agenda
Hi Adam,
Thanks, good points. Worth bearing in mind though that we've also started the tradition of doing NCSG policy meetings Monday mornings, as well as NCSG Tuesday afternoon sessions, where we can tackle such items as policy input opportunities & discussion of possible statements in the OF, Board meeting, comment periods, etc. So the questions is, what's the best division of labor across the three meetings. I'm inclined to think it best if the two constituency meetings do their respective administrativa & a basic ID of stances but then talk through GNSO policy issues together on Monday & Tues afternoon, but maybe there's a better configuration…?
We also have a meeting with ALAC Monday after our policy meeting, 11-12. And probably a small coffee with NTIA folks that afternoon, sometime after the Internet governance session. So lots going on…
On Jun 19, 2012, at 6:54 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
I think it would be a good idea to discuss digital archery, batching etc. See letter from GAC to Board, attached.
Digital archery was meant to objective and fair, seems (and this worth checking) that it is possible to provide solution that will consistently get within a couple of milliseconds of the target time. And that's a service applicants have to pay for: unfair.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45OrB-VJdcA> Pool and others offer similar.
Implications of the GAC's letter:
"Given the delays to the gTLD application process, the timing of upcoming ICANN meetings, and the amount of work involved, the GAC advises the Board that it will not be in a position to offer any advice on new gTLD applications in 2012.
Isn't there a half a year left in 2012?
For this reason, the GAC is considering the implications of providing any GAC advice on gTLD applications. These considerations are not expected to be finalised before the Asia-Pacific meeting in April 2013."
worth a chat.
Best,
Adam
This is a draft Agenda for the NCUC Constituency meeting on Tuesday morning of next weeks Prague meeting. This is the agenda that will be published on the website, but of course we can adjust the agenda based on participant priorities (and the outcomes of prior meetings such as the NCSG Policy Committee meeting on Monday).
I'm interested to hear feedback from NCUC membership. In particular: What policy issues would you like to discuss during this meeting? (and note that some issues, including the ICRC/IOC/IGO special exemptions and the RAA negotiations, will be discussed during the NCSG meeting in the afternoon, and substantive discussion may be better there) and do you think the balance between policy issues, and organisational issues such as Outreach and capacity building, is right, or would you rather change the balance?
9:00 - 9:30 - Introductions, Discuss Agenda. 9:30-10:00 - Outreach and membership 10:00-10:15 - Toronto Outreach event planning 10:15:10:30 - Charter and Elections 10:30-11:00 - Coffee break 11:00-11:30 - Policy updates from GNSO councillors 11:30-12:00 - Policy discussion - ICRC/IOC/IGO special exemptions, new gTLD issues, RAA 12:00- 12:30 - Any other business
Regards
David Cake NCUC Interim Chair <pdfgSYXe0qA07.pdf>
I warmly extend greetings from the ALAC liaison to the NCSG (ie, me). There is a formal ALAC/NCSG meeting on Monday. One, the NCUC is considering the fairness of digital archery as an issue.
From what I heard on yesterday's NARALO call, we don't consider it a public-interest issue (which, as you know, I disagree with, in other words, I agree with the NCUC.
There is a difference between agreement in sentiment and agreement in tactics. I don't know of ANYONE who disagrees with the sentiment "digital archery is dumb, and in practical use no better than a lottery than choosing order of processing". The issue is what to do about it. The Board has already indicated that it is continuing with DA but may in fact (and in response to community reaction) toss the results and try something different. In fact, I've already suggested two alternative methods, though one of them may attract gaming attempts<http://diggy.wordpress.com/2007/03/07/how-to-win-a-jellybean-counting-contes...> . What wasn't resolved in NARALO, though was: - how the prioritization of various applications -- let alone its method -- was a matter of public interest - what At-Large should be doing and is able to do (beyond call attention to the reputation botch) Having a dicussion with the NCUC so we can agree about how awfully ICANN botched DA may relieve stress, but doesn't in itself offer any constructive recommendations going forward. We can stress the need to look at the only two existing categories of applicants -- IDNs and community -- as deserving of priority in any new batching system. But unless we have something new or novel to add, we'd just be adding to the existing cacophony of protest. Now... do you have a plan to come out of such discussion with a specific action item? If so I'm certainly open to change my mind. There is some flexibility in the NCSG/ALAC agenda, but I myself an averse to simple joint complaint sessions without an end game. Two, the NCUC is planning for Toronto.
There is certainly an opportunity for joint outreach here. And: Can we get with them on Toronto and possibly plan something together?
We did do some joint event planning in San Francisco, which resulted in the well-attended Internet Town Hall.
While attendance was good, I don't consider the Town Hall to have been very effective in actually creating any go-forward policy strategy useful for ICANN. Lost of aired grievances and collective hand wringing, zero action items resulting. There was debating on which speakers had more credibility than others when discussing Internet access blocking in Africa. And most of it was about issues far outside ICANN's realm. So if the target is doing another meeting like what happened in SF, I'm personally not interested and would not attend. We're not IGF.
Just a thought -- strength in numbers.
Collecting the numbers, and then not doing anything with the result, provided a sense of frustration and wasted opportunity that I'd say in hindsight to have been worse than never having been teased at all. - Evan
I agree with Evan and I would certainly support a meeting with NCUC to discuss this matter if there is any kind of action that can be taken. Like Evan, I find hand-wringing and complaining to be a waste of my valuable time. If it is a strategy meeting with actions to move forward, then I'm all for it. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:23 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery I warmly extend greetings from the ALAC liaison to the NCSG (ie, me). There is a formal ALAC/NCSG meeting on Monday. One, the NCUC is considering the fairness of digital archery as an issue.
From what I heard on yesterday's NARALO call, we don't consider it a public-interest issue (which, as you know, I disagree with, in other words, I agree with the NCUC.
There is a difference between agreement in sentiment and agreement in tactics. I don't know of ANYONE who disagrees with the sentiment "digital archery is dumb, and in practical use no better than a lottery than choosing order of processing". The issue is what to do about it. The Board has already indicated that it is continuing with DA but may in fact (and in response to community reaction) toss the results and try something different. In fact, I've already suggested two alternative methods, though one of them may attract gaming attempts<http://diggy.wordpress.com/2007/03/07/how-to-win-a-jellybean-counting-contes...> . What wasn't resolved in NARALO, though was: - how the prioritization of various applications -- let alone its method -- was a matter of public interest - what At-Large should be doing and is able to do (beyond call attention to the reputation botch) Having a dicussion with the NCUC so we can agree about how awfully ICANN botched DA may relieve stress, but doesn't in itself offer any constructive recommendations going forward. We can stress the need to look at the only two existing categories of applicants -- IDNs and community -- as deserving of priority in any new batching system. But unless we have something new or novel to add, we'd just be adding to the existing cacophony of protest. Now... do you have a plan to come out of such discussion with a specific action item? If so I'm certainly open to change my mind. There is some flexibility in the NCSG/ALAC agenda, but I myself an averse to simple joint complaint sessions without an end game. Two, the NCUC is planning for Toronto.
There is certainly an opportunity for joint outreach here. And: Can we get with them on Toronto and possibly plan something together?
We did do some joint event planning in San Francisco, which resulted in the well-attended Internet Town Hall.
While attendance was good, I don't consider the Town Hall to have been very effective in actually creating any go-forward policy strategy useful for ICANN. Lost of aired grievances and collective hand wringing, zero action items resulting. There was debating on which speakers had more credibility than others when discussing Internet access blocking in Africa. And most of it was about issues far outside ICANN's realm. So if the target is doing another meeting like what happened in SF, I'm personally not interested and would not attend. We're not IGF.
Just a thought -- strength in numbers.
Collecting the numbers, and then not doing anything with the result, provided a sense of frustration and wasted opportunity that I'd say in hindsight to have been worse than never having been teased at all. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
The GAC have already come out against DA, the GAC is concerned that the potential risks associated with the digital
archery and batching mechanisms may outweigh the benefits. In light of ICANN’s decision to initiate digital archery on 8 June 2012, *the GAC advises the Board* to consult with the community as a matter of urgency to consider ways to improve its assessment and delegation processes in order to minimise the downside risks and uncertainty for applicants. In line with the concerns raised by the community, this should include a focus on competition and fairness with delegation timing.
Source: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfW8Auik6tLt.pdf More: http://domainincite.com/9494-delays-likely-as-governments-demand-gtld-timeta... On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca>wrote:
I agree with Evan and I would certainly support a meeting with NCUC to discuss this matter if there is any kind of action that can be taken. Like Evan, I find hand-wringing and complaining to be a waste of my valuable time. If it is a strategy meeting with actions to move forward, then I'm all for it.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:23 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery
I warmly extend greetings from the ALAC liaison to the NCSG (ie, me).
There is a formal ALAC/NCSG meeting on Monday.
One, the NCUC is considering the fairness of digital archery as an issue.
From what I heard on yesterday's NARALO call, we don't consider it a public-interest issue (which, as you know, I disagree with, in other words, I agree with the NCUC.
There is a difference between agreement in sentiment and agreement in tactics.
I don't know of ANYONE who disagrees with the sentiment "digital archery is dumb, and in practical use no better than a lottery than choosing order of processing". The issue is what to do about it.
The Board has already indicated that it is continuing with DA but may in fact (and in response to community reaction) toss the results and try something different. In fact, I've already suggested two alternative methods, though one of them may attract gaming attempts< http://diggy.wordpress.com/2007/03/07/how-to-win-a-jellybean-counting-contes...
.
What wasn't resolved in NARALO, though was: - how the prioritization of various applications -- let alone its method -- was a matter of public interest - what At-Large should be doing and is able to do (beyond call attention to the reputation botch)
Having a dicussion with the NCUC so we can agree about how awfully ICANN botched DA may relieve stress, but doesn't in itself offer any constructive recommendations going forward. We can stress the need to look at the only two existing categories of applicants -- IDNs and community -- as deserving of priority in any new batching system. But unless we have something new or novel to add, we'd just be adding to the existing cacophony of protest.
Now... do you have a plan to come out of such discussion with a specific action item? If so I'm certainly open to change my mind. There is some flexibility in the NCSG/ALAC agenda, but I myself an averse to simple joint complaint sessions without an end game.
Two, the NCUC is planning for Toronto.
There is certainly an opportunity for joint outreach here.
And: Can we get with them on Toronto and possibly plan something together?
We did do some joint event planning in San Francisco, which resulted in the well-attended Internet Town Hall.
While attendance was good, I don't consider the Town Hall to have been very effective in actually creating any go-forward policy strategy useful for ICANN. Lost of aired grievances and collective hand wringing, zero action items resulting. There was debating on which speakers had more credibility than others when discussing Internet access blocking in Africa. And most of it was about issues far outside ICANN's realm. So if the target is doing another meeting like what happened in SF, I'm personally not interested and would not attend. We're not IGF.
Just a thought -- strength in numbers.
Collecting the numbers, and then not doing anything with the result, provided a sense of frustration and wasted opportunity that I'd say in hindsight to have been worse than never having been teased at all.
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
Corrected pdf link http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/dryden-to-crocker-17jun12-en.pdf On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
The GAC have already come out against DA,
the GAC is concerned that the potential risks associated with the digital
archery and batching mechanisms may outweigh the benefits. In light of ICANN’s decision to initiate digital archery on 8 June 2012, *the GAC advises the Board* to consult with the community as a matter of urgency to consider ways to improve its assessment and delegation processes in order to minimise the downside risks and uncertainty for applicants. In line with the concerns raised by the community, this should include a focus on competition and fairness with delegation timing.
Source: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfW8Auik6tLt.pdf
More: http://domainincite.com/9494-delays-likely-as-governments-demand-gtld-timeta...
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca>wrote:
I agree with Evan and I would certainly support a meeting with NCUC to discuss this matter if there is any kind of action that can be taken. Like Evan, I find hand-wringing and complaining to be a waste of my valuable time. If it is a strategy meeting with actions to move forward, then I'm all for it.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:23 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery
I warmly extend greetings from the ALAC liaison to the NCSG (ie, me).
There is a formal ALAC/NCSG meeting on Monday.
One, the NCUC is considering the fairness of digital archery as an issue.
From what I heard on yesterday's NARALO call, we don't consider it a public-interest issue (which, as you know, I disagree with, in other words, I agree with the NCUC.
There is a difference between agreement in sentiment and agreement in tactics.
I don't know of ANYONE who disagrees with the sentiment "digital archery is dumb, and in practical use no better than a lottery than choosing order of processing". The issue is what to do about it.
The Board has already indicated that it is continuing with DA but may in fact (and in response to community reaction) toss the results and try something different. In fact, I've already suggested two alternative methods, though one of them may attract gaming attempts< http://diggy.wordpress.com/2007/03/07/how-to-win-a-jellybean-counting-contes...
.
What wasn't resolved in NARALO, though was: - how the prioritization of various applications -- let alone its method -- was a matter of public interest - what At-Large should be doing and is able to do (beyond call attention to the reputation botch)
Having a dicussion with the NCUC so we can agree about how awfully ICANN botched DA may relieve stress, but doesn't in itself offer any constructive recommendations going forward. We can stress the need to look at the only two existing categories of applicants -- IDNs and community -- as deserving of priority in any new batching system. But unless we have something new or novel to add, we'd just be adding to the existing cacophony of protest.
Now... do you have a plan to come out of such discussion with a specific action item? If so I'm certainly open to change my mind. There is some flexibility in the NCSG/ALAC agenda, but I myself an averse to simple joint complaint sessions without an end game.
Two, the NCUC is planning for Toronto.
There is certainly an opportunity for joint outreach here.
And: Can we get with them on Toronto and possibly plan something together?
We did do some joint event planning in San Francisco, which resulted in the well-attended Internet Town Hall.
While attendance was good, I don't consider the Town Hall to have been very effective in actually creating any go-forward policy strategy useful for ICANN. Lost of aired grievances and collective hand wringing, zero action items resulting. There was debating on which speakers had more credibility than others when discussing Internet access blocking in Africa. And most of it was about issues far outside ICANN's realm. So if the target is doing another meeting like what happened in SF, I'm personally not interested and would not attend. We're not IGF.
Just a thought -- strength in numbers.
Collecting the numbers, and then not doing anything with the result, provided a sense of frustration and wasted opportunity that I'd say in hindsight to have been worse than never having been teased at all.
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
participants (4)
-
Beau Brendler -
Evan Leibovitch -
Joly MacFie -
Thompson, Darlene