[PC-NCSG] Operating Plan

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Ed,

Thanks for this note,
There was no work in our side about the strategical and operating plan . We
missed that unfortunately.
I am concerned about the point #2 , the SO-AC requests is just getting
shape , with the community support for non-contracted party. A change will
hinder our work in future.
I have limited bandwidth now and I am wondering if we can ask ICANN staff
for extra days to draft something.

Best,

Rafik
On Dec 30, 2014 7:31 AM, "Edward Morris" <emorris at milk.toast.net> wrote:

>
>  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/20141231/d15c6735/attachment.html>