Open Public Comment: Continuous Improvement Program Framework

[Pedro de Perdigão Lana]

Hi Caleb!

Sorry for the delayed response, and thanks for your detailed answer. What
you said actually solves my doubts, in the sense that this was a concern of
the WG, and the substructure functioning was discussed. I agree with the
rest of the document.

It is not a different perspective, but I think we can ask for more details
on the role the substructures will play (if this will be designed by the SO
or by staff, for example).

Cordially,

*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
Researcher
PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
Coordination/Board/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/> and CC
Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>
This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
mistake, please reply informing it.


Em qui., 26 de dez. de 2024 às 21:01, Caleb Ogundele <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>
escreveu:

> 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/20250103/5f37c61b/attachment.htm>