Congratulations and a reminder

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

While I have your attention, may I please remind you that we have to have
> proposals for topics to discuss withe the Board by Monday.  So far, noone
> has proposed anything except Kathy Kleiman, who thinks (as I do) that a
> discussion of the new google format for seeking comments may be a good
> topic.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this new format,
> while helpful to staff in compiling comments, restricts the ambit of
> comment and may lead to bias. It is also a nightmare to navigate, in my
> opinion, having had a difficult time following the EPDP comments.  I am
> about to review the comment on Sub Pro (Here is the form:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-draft-final-report-2020-08-20-en)
> and I expect it to be a painful experience as well.  Don't let my grumbling
> deter you though, please take a look at what has been submitted on this
> important topic, available here
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VOCuHrCIWc3D9aJV2-woOob8atmg6o20AzE7NMse5CE/edit#gid=472588409
> .
>
I don't have an issue with the use of forms. I understand the weight of
habit, how it is hard to change that we might find it easier to write
comments on more or less freestyle ( which IMHO encourages focus in many
occurences on rhetoric than substance). there is a reality check, public
comments are not asking simple questions that expect straightforward
answers . It usually includes more than dozen of policy recommendations ,
plus all kinds of questions from WG asking for input. I see that it
requires structure that a form outline can give and help. Is there another
alternative to explore which can give better experience? maybe, it can be
something to explore
We complained before that some of our comments might not have been captured
in staff summary, that is unlikely to happen with form where responses and
questions are clearly indicated and visible.


> In the absence of other suggestions coming from members, I am going to
> propose discussing the results of ICANN investment and participation in the
> Internet and Jurisdiction project.  Members may be aware that ICANN has
> participated at the Board level in this interesting work, and while I have
> no figures for the financial investment, it must be significant, judging
> from the level of participation of staff and the Board.  The problem of
> jurisdiction and choice of law remains one of those hardy perennials, we
> certainly had it arise in the context of the EPDP, and the recent Schrems
> II decision (
> https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-07/cp200091en.pdf)
> and the US White Paper response to that decision (
> https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/SCCsWhitePaperFORMATTEDFINAL508COMPLIANT.PDF)
> brings the issue of transborder dataflow back into focus.  I realize this
> is not everyone's interest, but it is mine, and if you are not going to
> suggest anything, this is what I propose to inquire about.
>

I have a suggestion, I want to discuss with the board about implementation
and approval of recommendations. In particular there is a new idea from
ICANN CEO proposed to SO/AC leaders to have design implementation to help
the board before approving recommendations.  It looks ok but we need to
think about the whole PDP lifecycle (we tend to focus on the WG phase)  and
the impact of such a new vehicle on certain PDPs. There are also issues
regarding implementation like for EPDP phase 1 that I would discuss with
the board.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20201005/3dc2c449/attachment.htm>