[Public Comments] Call for Volunteers for NCSG Comment on Draft PTI FY21-24 Strategic Plan

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

Thanks, Raphael - for picking up the drafting pen, for entertaining our discussion and for being so responsive to it. I hope we haven't unnecessarily made your task too complicated.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On May 24, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Thank you for what I think has been a fruitful discussion! I rearranged the comment in light of what I understand to be our agreement; I would kindly invite you to have a look at it again, and feel free to directly edit in the doc as you see fit.
>
> And yes Amr that's basically what I've aimed it, adding what our issues *may be* regarding possible some interpretations of what they wrote (as we have tried to figure out!)
>
> Have a nice Sunday,
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 3:28 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I honestly don’t know what they are telling us. The document they drafted and published for public comment is so cryptic, that it’s hard to work out what their issues are. They list a bunch of vague risks as bullet points without providing any context or details, so there’s a suggestion that something’s wrong, but your guess as to what that something is is as good as anyone else’s. They might be trying to say that ICANN is not providing adequate financial support, or they might just be listing risks the way they’re identified in a SWOT analysis - as some kind of external issue outside of their control, which may affect them negatively.
>>
>> Maybe the basis of the NCSG comment should be something along the lines of, “hey PTI…, cut out all the drama and suspense, and just go ahead and say what it is you’re trying to say, so that we can properly comment on it!!” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On May 24, 2020, at 6:16 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at GATECH.EDU> wrote:
>>>
>>> This part also struck my eye:
>>>
>>> AMR: Another community-related risk identified is the concern that PTI will be unable to meet all the community’s “expectations and community deliverables due to dependency on ICANN Operating Plan and Budget”. Again…, I don’t know if this is actually an issue, or not, but they’ve flagged it, so worth looking in to. If ICANN’s Operating Plan and Budget is a constraint on PTI’s ability to perform the IANA functions to the satisfaction of its customers, then something will clearly need to be done about it. If it is an exaggeration, and things may proceed without incident, then grand. I really don’t know, but I’m sure others here do.
>>>
>>> MM: Are they telling us ICANN is not providing adequate financial support?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200524/45209d4f/attachment.htm>