Congratulations and a reminder
Stephanie E Perrin
stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA
Thu Oct 8 10:35:34 EEST 2020
Hi folks. Of course we can talk about whatever we want, and if we want
the Board to prepare we can send an addendum. See the highlighted
portion of my message below. What I was looking for was some kind of
focused question about this nine paged document. IF you just want to ask
questions , I am not really sure we need to add a further addendum, but
in the interests of time I am sending a generic question.
Re Milton's second proposal.....I certainly get the concern. Further
legal certainty is quite likely to lead to LESS centralization in my
opinion. However, given that Goran has historically not appreciated us
correcting him and his letters describing the EPDP and the DPAs, I am
not sure we gain much by barking up this particular tree. We have a
question on the EPDP, we can raise it then if we really want to start a
fight.
On the matter of the Operational Desigh Paper, I would invite those who
have expressed concern to raise this issue for us (James, Milton,
Bruna). I would add Rafik, who made a few eloquent points about it in
the GNSO Council webinar the other day. Procedurally, I think it is
very important that any operational concerns be raised during the policy
development phase, not at the Board decision phase. ICANN is morphing
into a bureaucracy, not a multistakeholder organization where policy is
developed by the stakeholders.
Thanks for your interest in this topic!! I apologize if I was a bit
snippy about the deadlines, but nobody ever thinks about these things
until the last minute.
Cheers Stephanie
On 2020-10-07 11:40 a.m., Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Treat content with extra caution.
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
>
>
> --
>
> */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/20201008/f5efaa52/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list