[Public Comments]: Draft Comment on Open Data Initiative Datasets and Metadata

Fri Jul 27 20:55:06 EEST 2018

indeed Anriette, thanks for the drafters who worked on the comment. while
we are mostly checking the document, they did the thankless job to go
through a long spreadsheet and analyze it to find what is relevant for us
as a group. much appreciated.

with regard to open data and what data should be open by ICANN, I believe
this discussion should continue within NCSG to know what is the
priority for us as dataset and how we can use that at the end. we will
follow closely this initiative.
there are other relevant initiatives like the one on document management we
should pay attention as it is important for our work regarding policy.

Best,

Rafik

Le sam. 28 juil. 2018 à 06:57, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> a
écrit :

> Thanks to all who worked on this. Here is a related reading which I
> recommend highly:
>
> https://manypossibilities.net/2018/05/open-telecom-data-moving-forward/
>
> Anriette
>
> On 27/07/2018 18:43, Elsa S wrote:
>
> Super, thanks Ayden! And again, thanks to everyone who gave the draft a
> look, your additions made it as complete as possible given the timeframe!
>
> E.
> —
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:42 PM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Elsa,
>>
>> Just a small clarification, the other changes were made in "suggestion
>> mode." However they were accepted by the Policy Committee Chair already
>> (perhaps before you saw them?), as they also have editing privileges for
>> the document.
>>
>> The deadline for the submission of this comment to ICANN org is 23:59 UTC
>> tonight, so it is already with the Policy Committee for review. We have
>> been looking over the document for a few days now and discussing, hence why
>> some edits were already accepted.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 18:13, Elsa S <elsa.saade at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Ayden,
>>
>> Thanks! I accepted some of the suggestions earlier today! What I was
>> referring to was the added parts to the doc which I think are extremely
>> important to keep an eye out for. Especially the list of extra data that we
>> need and cannot find in the inventory for instance. It would have been good
>> for members to check them out (there’s a small discussion happening on
>> there, if we should add all the items currently in the list or not). And in
>> the history, changes can be found most times but the person who made the
>> changes would almost always be "anonymous". Which would make it hard to ask
>> for fast clarification. That’s what I was referring to :)
>>
>> But thanks for offering to help! It’s appreciated.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Elsa
>> —
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:09 PM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Elsa,
>>>
>>> All of the changes that I made to the document were in ‘suggestion
>>> mode’, but someone else with editing privileges has already accepted some
>>> of them. (I have received notifications from Google that this has
>>> happened.) In the history tab, however, you can turn them back on to see
>>> what changes have been made to the document and which have been accepted by
>>> other editors. Please let me know off-list if you’d like me to show you how
>>> to see these edits.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 18:00, Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>
>>> Reviewing the comment and suggestions as we speak. Many of the changes
>>> were not mapped. Could we for future comments' reference, map our changes
>>> in order for us to make sure we have a good progress report on the google
>>> doc? It would be best I think.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your efforts, and thank you all for all the comments and
>>> engagement. We'll be sending this to the Policy Committee for their review
>>> by the end of this working day.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Elsa
>>> --
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Raoul,
>>>>
>>>> I will forward your message to the Policy Committee to review.
>>>>
>>>> My initial reaction is, I’m not sure why we would need to make the case
>>>> for the benefits of open data, when ICANN has already committed to making
>>>> it available?
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 12:23, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for being late in returning to this, but could we add a sentence
>>>> or just a small list on why opening data is commendable?
>>>>
>>>> Open data offers benefits in many areas and ICANN could gain from:
>>>>
>>>>    - Transparency and democratic control
>>>>    - Participation
>>>>    - Self-empowerment
>>>>    - Improved or new private products and services
>>>>    - Innovation
>>>>    - Improved efficiency of services
>>>>    - Improved effectiveness of services
>>>>    - Impact measurement of policies
>>>>    - New knowledge from combined data sources and patterns in large
>>>>    data volumes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Raoul
>>>>
>>>> On 26 July 2018 at 13:54, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Sam,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have made some rather substantial (proposed) edits to this statement
>>>>> now. In response to your comment, I have cited recommendation 10.5 of the
>>>>> Accountability and Transparency Review 2, and called for ICANN to provide
>>>>> non-commercial stakeholders with the resources required in order to
>>>>> interrogate and analyse this data.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Policy Committee is looking over this comment now (hence my last
>>>>> minute edits), but if there are any additional comments/suggestions that
>>>>> anyone has, we would still be able to consider them if they are added to
>>>>> the document today:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>>> On 23 July 2018 9:02 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at YORKU.CA> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>> While I fully endorse as much open data access for ICANN as is
>>>>> possible, without compromising personal privacy, I am sobered by the
>>>>> general view that in Open Government Data most of the benefits go to the
>>>>> deep pocketed stakeholders (corporate entities) that have the financial
>>>>> resources to mine the data.
>>>>>
>>>>> Giving civil society access, without it having research resources,
>>>>> leaves it dependent on those few academics who will mine the data in the
>>>>> public interest, or when it just occasionally catches data outliers that
>>>>> raise concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam L.,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:54 PM, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <
>>>>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Elsa, hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you and the team for taking the time for drafting the
>>>>>> comment. I find that the points raised in the comment are indeed relevant!
>>>>>> From a broader perspective, it is good that ICANN has plans to publish more
>>>>>> data - I can see a lot of potential for qualitative and quantitative
>>>>>> research here in various fields of social sciences!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>>
>>> Elsa Saade
>>> Consultant
>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>>>
>>> --
>> --
>>
>> Elsa Saade
>> Consultant
>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>>
>> --
> --
>
> Elsa Saade
> Consultant
> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180727/1b9dbc30/attachment.htm>