[PC-NCSG] Operating Plan

[Edward Morris]

Hi guys,

I?m a bit confused as to where we?re at in getting the PC up and running 
(heck, I?m still confused as to what happened to the DIDP I, along with 
Stephanie, submitted to the PC for consideration many months ago) but I note 
that the reply period for public comments on ICANN?s operating plan ends 
within a week 
(https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-opplan-budget-2016-2020-2014-11-11-en 
). Most of this stuff is administrative in nature, so I suspect of more 
interest to our esteemed Constituency and SG leaders than to others, but I 
do have the following questions or concerns:

1. In SG 1.1, and elsewhere, making materials available in ?multiple 
languages? appears to be a metric used to measure ICANN?s increased 
globalization . That?s great but what do we mean by multiple languages? 
Put everything in French as well as English and we all go home happy? Should 
not a goal be to greatly increase the number of languages ICANN produces 
basic materials in while providing real time translation in major languages 
of at least select working groups? Producing post hoc documents in French or 
Spanish really does not do much to ?globalize and regionalize ICANN 
functions? beyond the French and Spanish speaking worlds. The young girl 
in Yanji who only speaks the most popular language in the world, Chinese, is 
not going to be helped by post hoc translation of materials into ?multiple 
languages? that do not include Chinese. The metrics in this area need to 
be drastically improved so that ICANN is committed to true globalization.

2. In the FY17 phasing for SG 1.3 it is noted that the final SO-AC special 
request process will be conducted and presumably it then will be be 
discontinued. With all of the additional demands being placed on SO/AC?s 
is this really the time to reduce resources directed to them? Is anything 
being contemplated to replace the special request process?

2. In SG 3.3 mention is made of ?ICANN Technical University?. An online 
search results only in this unique mention of our new institution. Has 
anybody come across this before? Is ICANN now in the university business? 
With the ongoing mission creep at ICANN I wouldn?t be shocked, just would 
like to be informed. Anybody?

3. The metrics for SG 4.1 (ICANN?s engagement with the existing IG 
ecosystem) is a bit narrow: MOU?s with international organizations with 
mutual recognition of roles within ICANN. Seems to me the metrics for SG4 
could be considerably broader and incorporate community participation in the 
IG ecosystem. I?m also a bit concerned about what exactly ?mutual 
recognition of roles within ICANN? means. Are we looking at more 
?stakeholder plus? type deals, such as with the GAC?

4. The metric for SG 4.2 is ?Increase # of GAC members?. I support that; 
perhaps my native Ireland will join. It would be nice, considering the fact 
we?re meeting in Dublin in the fall. My concern is that there does not 
seem to be an equal concern about ?increasing the number of noncommercial 
members? or ?increasing the number of commercial members?. Why does 
GAC membership get this special mention? I personally would like to see the 
same concern shown for other groups and a specific  strategic plan, complete 
with metrics,  to make that happen.

5. The metric for SG 5.1 (Act as a steward of the public interest) involves 
a  ?common consensus based definition of public interest?. Can we have 
the definition please? I?d suggest one does not exist. The phasing is 
equally problematic.  In FY16, for example, ICANN is to ?create (a) 
framework for ICANN?s SOs and ACs to assist them in assessing how their 
actions align to the public interest?. We thus  may find ourselves in the 
position of having to assess how our actions align to some nebulous concept 
of ?public interest? created by an undefined ?common consensus?. 
Might I suggest that this may be one of the reasons the BC has been so 
active in pushing their own co0ncept of the ?public interest? in the 
Accountability discussions? I?d suggest we need to push back here.

There is a lot of material in the Draft 5 Year Operating Plan and I?m sure 
many of those more experienced than I may have more nuanced takes on things. 
The BC and IPC have already submitted comments. Should we as a PC gear up 
and try to do the same? If so, as a newbie I?d like to ask how shall we do 
so?

Thanks for considering,

Ed 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141229/4070433a/attachment.html>