Congratulations and a reminder

Wed Oct 7 10:45:16 EEST 2020

I guess my email was mostly focused on an internal discussion of the topic
as well.

But sure, Milton. We can request the update..

Em qua, 7 de out de 2020 12:41, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
escreveu:

> Bruna
>
> We can discuss it with the board. Stephanie just needs to update our
> request. I have heard directly from board members that other constituencies
> do this all the time. Just send them a revised list
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Bruna
> Martins dos Santos
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2020 11:26 AM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: Congratulations and a reminder
>
>
>
> 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/20201007/312d58c9/attachment.htm>