Congratulations and a reminder

[Bruna Martins dos Santos]

I'm assuming Milton and James are referring to the group that issued the
Operational Design Phase Paper. According to the document: "The Operational
Design Phase will be initiated by the Board and include two tracks of
activity: ICANN org’s assessment of the impact of proposed policy
recommendations; and the opportunity for community feedback on such an
assessment.".

Definitely agree with the concerns and, despite the fact that we won't be
able to discuss it with the board, should I add this to the NCUC meeting
agenda ? Or maybe we can open a different thread on this topic.

Best,
B

On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 5:35 PM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote:

> Unfortunately, i had to submit the topics by the deadline yesterday.
> However, the topics fit under the epdp topic.  Can you give me a reference
> for this Design feedback group to cite please?   I will send  this addendum.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 6, 2020, at 15:14, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> 
>
> 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> 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
>
>

-- 
*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
@boomartins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20201007/73f0f7a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Design-Phase-Concept-Draft-1oct20.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 141063 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20201007/73f0f7a1/attachment.pdf>