Re: [UA-EAI] [UA-discuss] Some Recommendations in Working Groups
Dear Sarmad, All inputs seems good to me and appreciated in working group charters. I would only wish one feedback to be assimilated in membership area of the document. *"Working group member must attend atleast two (2) F2F meeting in a calendar year during ICANN or any other event where working group hold its F2F meetings."* *Reason of this recommendation:* it’s much easier to build relationships through face-to-face meetings and take constructive decisions than it is with virtual meetings. *And relationships are without a doubt and every individual opinion will be valued seriously*, *trust and no chase of anonymously communication the key to any kind of working group success in my opinion*. It will be appreciated if UASG can fund only travel of these 2 F2F meetings only for working group individuals who give their 90% presence even during virtual meetings in that calendar year, this will lead to maximum involvement of committed members and working group can deliver its mission. It is always better to have the hard conversations face-to-face. So much gets lost in translation otherwise, and a small problem can grow in a big problem simply because we didn't make the effort to meet with someone face-to-face to talk through the issue and work out a solution. The real key here is to make them productive, smart, effective meetings, not just irritating meetings that really are a waste of time. Best Regards Harry Jacob On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:51 AM Jim DeLaHunt <list+uasg@jdlh.com> wrote:
Hello, UA-discuss.
There is a lot to support in this message from Richard Nims. There are also some things which I think might not be so helpful. I will interleave comments in Richard's message. On 2019-07-29 04:06, richard nims wrote:
... [some text omitted for brevity] ...
*Fundamental Principles of Operation*
For the development of standards, openness and due process are mandatory. Openness means that any person who has, or could be reasonably expected to have, a direct and material interest, and who meets the requirements of these procedures has a right to participate by:
a) Attending working group meetings
b) Becoming a member of the working group
c) Expressing a position for chair of working group and its basis,
These are positive sentiments. I think there should be, at the top of the list, something about doing specific activities to promote Universal Acceptance, preferably outside the UA-Discuss and UASG context. We are not here to build an organisation for its own sake. We are here to spread Universal Acceptance. Authority should derive from accomplishments.
Due process is based upon equity and fair play. The standards development process should strive to have both a balance of interests and not be dominated by any single interest category.
I support these sentiments, but I also think they are pretty general and not very helpful to spread Universal Acceptance.
*Election of Chair of working group: *The UASG administrative group must get elections done for every working group. The interested members of the working group must file self-nomination or any member of working group should nominate, ...
I don't see why this proposal puts so much emphasis about electing the chair of the working group, and so little emphasis on how the group will work. What really matters is to spread Universal Acceptance in the real world.
...fundamentally that individual member nominated shall not be on any position in UA administrative group or any other working groups at the same time. Members of the working group should only be allowed to cast the vote and select chair of working group....
This looks like it is trying to prevent or solve a problem, but I'm not sure what the problem is. Why shouldn't a leader of the UASG also participate in a regional working group for their own region? Why shouldn't someone with expertise, or active in multiple regions, participate in multiple regional working groups? Is there a concealed message that the UA administrative group is a danger to be kept at a distance? If so, I don't agree with that.
My experience with these working groups is that it is difficult to find people willing to get the work done. We should welcome anyone who wants to put in the effort.
*Working Group: *Working group member should be individual. Each member is expected to attend meetings. We must record attendance at meetings via teleconferencing and/or electronic means, e.g., Internet conferencing, shall count towards the attendance requirements apart from F2F meeting during ICANN or other events.
*Responsibilities of Working Group: *
Set goals and deadlines and adhere to them
Prioritize work to best serve the group and its goals
Get the materials available for community related to working of group
Maintain lists of unresolved issues, action items, and assignments.
The working group will engage in a fact-finding effort of the perceived problems raised in there space and what are the possible solutions, and what are the pros and cons relating these possible solutions. What activities are actually underway, how extensive are they. The Working Group can circulated surveys to gather facts about the technical and issues raised by services currently being provided in there space.
It seems to me that all this focusses on the operation and the internal activities of the working group. Nothing mentions the external activities of spreading Universal Acceptance in the real world. It seems a big oversight to me that the responsibilities of the working group does not include, "promote Universal Acceptance". It seems that before we expect members to attend meetings, we should expect them to do activities outside the meetings to spread Universal Acceptance, to contribute to Universal Acceptance discussion on email lists, and to have evidence of this activity be readily available for others to confirm.
I have a concern that this proposal will set up a structure which will consume a lot of energy for its own internal operations and politics, and won't be very focussed on spreading Universal Acceptance. I think that is not the best way to direct our attention and energy.
Kind wishes
Richard Nims
Best regards, —Jim DeLaHunt, software engineer, Vancouver, Canada.
-- --Jim DeLaHunt, jdlh@jdlh.com http://blog.jdlh.com/ (http://jdlh.com/) multilingual websites consultant
355-1027 Davie St, Vancouver BC V6E 4L2, Canada Canada mobile +1-604-376-8953
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Sarmad and all, Please see my comment inline On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:02 AM Harry Jacob <internetsafetyweek@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sarmad,
All inputs seems good to me and appreciated in working group charters. I would only wish one feedback to be assimilated in membership area of the document.
*"Working group member must attend atleast two (2) F2F meeting in a calendar year during ICANN or any other event where working group hold its F2F meetings."*
*I will suggest this to be informed of a crop that allow working group members to apply. This should not only be centered only on active member, but to encourage working group members that are willing to learn and be active in contributing towards the objective of UA. There should be measures to guide this. *
*Reason of this recommendation:* it’s much easier to build relationships through face-to-face meetings and take constructive decisions than it is with virtual meetings. *And relationships are without a doubt and every individual opinion will be valued seriously*, *trust and no chase of anonymously communication the key to any kind of working group success in my opinion*.
*Yes, that's true. I started to understand ICANN better when I started attending face to face meeting. I was able to better understand the purpose of UA during the Marrakech meeting. *
It will be appreciated if UASG can fund only travel of these 2 F2F meetings
only for working group individuals who give their 90% presence even during virtual meetings in that calendar year, this will lead to maximum involvement of committed members and working group can deliver its mission. It is always better to have the hard conversations face-to-face. So much gets lost in translation otherwise, and a small problem can grow in a big problem simply because we didn't make the effort to meet with someone face-to-face to talk through the issue and work out a solution.
The real key here is to make them productive, smart, effective meetings, not just irritating meetings that really are a waste of time.
Best Regards
Harry Jacob
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:51 AM Jim DeLaHunt <list+uasg@jdlh.com> wrote:
Hello, UA-discuss.
There is a lot to support in this message from Richard Nims. There are also some things which I think might not be so helpful. I will interleave comments in Richard's message. On 2019-07-29 04:06, richard nims wrote:
... [some text omitted for brevity] ...
*Fundamental Principles of Operation*
For the development of standards, openness and due process are mandatory. Openness means that any person who has, or could be reasonably expected to have, a direct and material interest, and who meets the requirements of these procedures has a right to participate by:
a) Attending working group meetings
b) Becoming a member of the working group
c) Expressing a position for chair of working group and its basis,
These are positive sentiments. I think there should be, at the top of the list, something about doing specific activities to promote Universal Acceptance, preferably outside the UA-Discuss and UASG context. We are not here to build an organisation for its own sake. We are here to spread Universal Acceptance. Authority should derive from accomplishments.
Due process is based upon equity and fair play. The standards development process should strive to have both a balance of interests and not be dominated by any single interest category.
I support these sentiments, but I also think they are pretty general and not very helpful to spread Universal Acceptance.
*Election of Chair of working group: *The UASG administrative group must get elections done for every working group. The interested members of the working group must file self-nomination or any member of working group should nominate, ...
I don't see why this proposal puts so much emphasis about electing the chair of the working group, and so little emphasis on how the group will work. What really matters is to spread Universal Acceptance in the real world.
*I think much importance is attached to the chair because the chair determines and steer the group to achieve set objectives. However, the chair must have basic leadership requirements, but not necessarily 100% technical. More importantly, the group must have a solid operational procedure for the working group. *
...fundamentally that individual member nominated shall not be on any
position in UA administrative group or any other working groups at the same time. Members of the working group should only be allowed to cast the vote and select chair of working group....
This looks like it is trying to prevent or solve a problem, but I'm not sure what the problem is. Why shouldn't a leader of the UASG also participate in a regional working group for their own region? Why shouldn't someone with expertise, or active in multiple regions, participate in multiple regional working groups? Is there a concealed message that the UA administrative group is a danger to be kept at a distance? If so, I don't agree with that.
My experience with these working groups is that it is difficult to find people willing to get the work done. We should welcome anyone who wants to put in the effort.
*My understanding of this statement is that it encourages as much as diverse participation in the working group leadership, preventing conflict of interest and distraction to fulfil the set goals. It is not stating that qualified and expertise should not participate in the working group, but not in the leadership of the working group to encourage people for leadership. For clarity, I proposed "fundamentally that individual member nominated shall not hold any leadership position in the UA administrative group or any other working groups at the same time.*
*Working Group: *Working group member should be individual. Each member
is expected to attend meetings. We must record attendance at meetings via teleconferencing and/or electronic means, e.g., Internet conferencing, shall count towards the attendance requirements apart from F2F meeting during ICANN or other events.
*Responsibilities of Working Group: *
Set goals and deadlines and adhere to them
Prioritize work to best serve the group and its goals
Get the materials available for community related to working of group
Maintain lists of unresolved issues, action items, and assignments.
The working group will engage in a fact-finding effort of the perceived problems raised in there space and what are the possible solutions, and what are the pros and cons relating these possible solutions. What activities are actually underway, how extensive are they. The Working Group can circulated surveys to gather facts about the technical and issues raised by services currently being provided in there space.
It seems to me that all this focusses on the operation and the internal activities of the working group. Nothing mentions the external activities of spreading Universal Acceptance in the real world. It seems a big oversight to me that the responsibilities of the working group does not include, "promote Universal Acceptance". It seems that before we expect members to attend meetings, we should expect them to do activities outside the meetings to spread Universal Acceptance, to contribute to Universal Acceptance discussion on email lists, and to have evidence of this activity be readily available for others to confirm.
I have a concern that this proposal will set up a structure which will consume a lot of energy for its own internal operations and politics, and won't be very focussed on spreading Universal Acceptance. I think that is not the best way to direct our attention and energy.
Kind wishes
Richard Nims
Best regards, —Jim DeLaHunt, software engineer, Vancouver, Canada.
-- --Jim DeLaHunt, jdlh@jdlh.com http://blog.jdlh.com/ (http://jdlh.com/) multilingual websites consultant
355-1027 Davie St, Vancouver BC V6E 4L2, Canada Canada mobile +1-604-376-8953
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ UA-EAI mailing list UA-EAI@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ua-eai
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_m...> Peter Taiwo Akinremi about.me/petertaiwoakinremi <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_m...>
participants (2)
-
Akinremi Peter Taiwo -
Harry Jacob