Congratulations and a reminder

[Tatiana Tropina]

I very much agree with James and Rafik. This proposal on design
implementation is so problematic that it certainly has a much higher
priority to be on the table for discussion than inquiring about Internet
and Jurisdiction.
Warm regards,
Tatiana

On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 23:56, James Gannon <lists at icann.guru> wrote:

> I would strongly support a very hardline discussion on the new Design
> Feedback Group concept that has been proposed, it runs the risk of
> fundamentally undermining the GNSO in a very real manner and needs some
> serious discussion before it becomes embedded and too late to object to its
> role and scope.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *James Gannon*
>
>
>
> *From: *NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of Rafik
> Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Reply to: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, 5 October 2020 at 07:29
> *To: *"NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> *Subject: *Re: Congratulations and a reminder
>
>
>
> 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/20201005/5b5ae5e3/attachment.htm>