Congratulations and a reminder

[Mueller, Milton L]

I would propose two topics.


1.       One would be to second (or third) James Gannon's suggestion that we critically assess the so-called Design Feedback Group.

2.       The other is that we discuss the letter that Goran sent to three European commission members regarding the SSAD. In that letter, The ICANN CEO mistakenly claims that "the community recommended that the SSAD should become more centralized in response to increased legal certainty." This is simply not true. Recommendation 18 called for the creation of a Standing Committee that could modify the SSAD, but nowhere it is stated that we are commited to more centralization in response to increased legal certainty. "The Charter must allow the Committee to address any operational issues involving the SSAD. This may include, but is not limited to, topics such as Service Level Agreements (SLAs), centralization / de-centralization, automation, third party purposes, financial sustainability and operational / system enhancements."

In both of these cases, we see ICANN's CEO attempting to bypass or create parallel processes to the legitimate, bottom up policy development process of the GNSO. There is a pattern here, and it must be confronted.

From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of James Gannon
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 5:55 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Congratulations and a reminder

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<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
Reply to: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, 5 October 2020 at 07:29
To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>" <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto: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/20201006/ec208014/attachment.htm>