Open Public Comment: Continuous Improvement Program Framework

Thu Dec 26 19:01:24 EET 2024

Hi Pedro,

Many thanks for taking up the challenge. As I mentioned, myself, Ben and
Manju were on the WG. Which means I cannot speak to the work that was
concensus driven. That said, for anyone who might want to join you to
comment on this should take note of the public comment deadline which is 17
January 2025. Happy to jump on a call with you as well to provide guidance.
I will respond to some of your questions inline.

On Thu, Dec 26, 2024, 5:01 AM Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> I was reading the docs to see if there is anything to comment on, but it
> seems like most of the details will be left for us to define.
>
Caleb - Absolutely, you are right that is if you have a contrary view to
the proposition and the concensus from the working group.

Reading the document, I couldn't understand clearly if, as mentioned in p.
> 7 (especially footnote 5), we will have separate criteria and indicators as
> NCSG, or if we will have to agree with the rest of the GNSO (or with the
> NCPH). Was that mentioned during the discussions?
>
Caleb - So the item you referred to was defined to accommodate every
SO/AC's view in the document. At some point, we also had a GNSO
Coordination breakout group to discuss the issues before we had a subgroup
take a unified stand on this. Therefore, both NCSG (bearing in mind I
represented NPOC) and the GNSO views were well articulated.

If not, I can draft a quick comment to request that the substructures' role
> in the CIP be more explicit.
>

Caleb - Absolutely, please go ahead and it will be such a pleasure to see a
diverse opinion. That is the beauty of multistakeholderism. Perhaps, you
might shed some light on things we missed.

>
> Anyway, one thing that caught my attention is that we should really keep
> an eye out for the Pilot Hilostic Review, since what happens there will be
> used as "checks and balances" for the "self-review" made within the CIP.
>

Caleb - Yes you are right. They are both connected and this Holistic Review
will play a connecting roles with some previous ATR3 recommendations.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone from NCSG was selected to be part of the
team despite the fact that I know a couple of NCSG folks applied and
weren't selected. I guess they went along the lines of regional
representations which I feel was not representative of SO/AC. See those in
the WG here.
https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-announces-pilot-holistic-review-team-13-09-2024-en

I also want to use this opportunity to check if we got any new info about
> the selection of GNSO reps to that working group, since, in our membership
> meeting in ICANN81, we had an indication by ICANN staff of who made the
> decision, but after that, asking around, I still couldn't get a
> confirmation on that.
>

Caleb - I don't think the list has changed plus since then.

Regards,
Caleb Ogundele

> Cordially,
>
> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
> Advogado - OAB/PR 90.600 <https://www.nic.br/>,  Pesquisador (GEDAI/UFPR
> <https://www.gedai.com.br/>)
> Doutorando em Direito (UFPR), Mestre em Direito Empresarial (UCoimbra),
> Coordenação/Diretoria/EC @ ISOC BR <https://isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
> <https://www.ncuc.org> & NCSG
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN),
> YouthLACIGF <https://youthlacigf.lat/>, IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> e CC
> Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>.
> Essa mensagem é restrita ao remetente e destinatário(s). Se recebida por
> engano, favor responder informando o erro.
>
>
> Em qui., 5 de dez. de 2024 às 16:36, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <
> mesumbeslin at gmail.com> escreveu:
>
>> Hi Caleb,
>>
>> Thank you for that additional information. It is very helpful.
>>
>> Warmly,
>> Tomslin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 at 03:22, Caleb Ogundele <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Many thanks Tomslin for posting this one.
>>> @All, If anyone has different views and public comments to write for the
>>> CIP, please let me, @Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com> and @陳曼茹
>>> Manju Chen <manju at nii.org.tw>  know about this. We were all on CIPWG
>>> and I feel it doesn't make sense for the three of us to comment on the WG
>>> output we were part of since most decisions were consensus-driven.
>>> Our role is to provide guidance to the public holder and explain any
>>> grey area of concern.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Caleb Ogundele
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 7:28 AM Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear members,
>>>>
>>>> ICANN org is seeking input on the *Continuous Improvement Program
>>>> Framework*.
>>>> Specifically, the comment is seeking input on
>>>>
>>>>    1. Whether the Continuous Improvement Program Framework is fit for
>>>>    purpose to evolve Organizational Reviews led by Independent Examiners into
>>>>    a Continuous Improvement Program led by the ICANN community, to inform the
>>>>    eventual Holistic Review
>>>>    2. Agreement for the Continuous Improvement Program Framework to be
>>>>    adopted by each SO, AC, and the NomCom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Let me know if you'd like to volunteer.
>>>>
>>>>    - *Link*:
>>>>       https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/continuous-improvement-program-framework-21-11-2024
>>>>    - *Deadline*: Closes on 17 January 2025
>>>>       - *Draft document*:
>>>>       https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XD1et1aNM4i-6d0-Vklx1iY-AcPx0UN6TDnJE4rcxPI/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>> You can view all past NCSG Public comments here
>>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2024>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Warmly,
>>>> Tomslin
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Caleb Ogundele*
>>> Email: muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20241226/57d31ae0/attachment.htm>