[PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement

[Rafik Dammak]

hi everyone,


I was thinking since a while that NCSG should have more clarity about the
process to manage, plan and build responses to public comments. we had so
many public comments lately, and in several occasions many in same time
period. we cannot respond to everything but we can try to be more efficient
and avoid (or lessen at least) the pressure.

I am proposing a kind of straw-man to kick-off  the discussion here . While
I want to focus on the public comments process, I am also making some
suggestion about the NCSG PC work. so it is a mix.


1- NCSG PC should follow a timeline template for any public comment it
wants to respond: except the CCWG report, the usual duration for public
comment is 41 days, so we can use that as frame

a timeline will include some milestones where NCSG PC has to act and/or
make decision. we will track that with some tools (see below) showing each
step. it will help us to move more or less from the ad-hoc approach .

to do some project management, tracking deadlines and volunteers, we can
use this board
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015
and this one https://trello.com/b/m2ec54mI/ncsg-policy-discussions-tracker
 (we can add here the different milestones or steps and having the status)

As timeline for example:

   - Day 1-3 : NCSG PC either initiate a discussion or receive a request
   from NCSG member to cover a public comment here
   https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public (there are other
   request such as WG sending request for feedback, GNSO council etc for those
   we can adapt the process). Adding the public comment as task into our
   tracking tool.


   - Day 4 : when a public comment is considered as priority for NCSG, the
   PC should make call for volunteers explaining why the comment is critical
   and giving some context ( those active in WG and/or gNSO council can help
   here by providing a brief), create a google doc, etherpad or any other tool
   adapted to drafting and co-authoring. the document/link should be shared in
   NCSG-DISCUSS list with the announcement.

we should get lead pen holder(s) who can make a first straw-man to get
people to give input and outline/highlights the areas of concerns or
interests for NCSG

   - Day 7 organizing a webinar if needed or add the public comment initial
   discussion to NCSG policy call (if it is not late), or at least initiate
   the discussion in the mailing list
   - Day 21: getting a first draft, asking NCSG members and NCSG PC members
   for comments to make the edits and resolve any concerns.


   - Day 28 a second draft is available , another optional webinar can be
   suggested
   - Day 30 call for consensus within NCSG list to be initiated by NCSG or
   PC chair(s)
   - Day 37 NCSG PC to evaluate the consensus, solve any remaining concerns
   - Day 40 submission of there is rough consensus. allowing the addition
   of minority statement (we should work to resolve any concerns from the
   beginning and reaching consensus). submission to be done by NCSG or PC
   chair(s) .


The timeline can be tweaked of course and other milestones added or removed
here. looking for your suggestions.
regarding the drafting and resolving concerns, we may need to discuss about
some guidelines here e.g. giving rationale for edits, doing some polling in
some cases etc

2- for other possible statement they are not public comments per se. we can
shorten the timeline and consider a "fast-track" here
the main milestones should be identifying a lead, consult NCSG list and
having a deadline to evaluate the consensus.
example:

   - Day 1 receiving request for feedback form WG A
   - Day 2 NCSG PC ask for volunteer to work on response (better to get
   someone involved in the WG already)
   - Day Deadline-7 days  call for consensus in NCSG and PC list
   - Deadline sending the response

we can follow the same template for call for volunteers for appointments to
cross-community working group or drafting team
we can add other cases where PC should act such endorsement to review teams

3- regarding PC work: I have concern that we tend to count on chairs only
to handle the work. I do think that the whole PC should be proactive.

one suggestion would to get  PC member (or expert member) to take the lead
of one policy area (areas to be identified) that will be ongoing in coming
months : new gTLD, Right protection mechanisms review (e.g. UDRP),
whois/RDS,  ICANN accountability, GNSO procedures or SCI  (we can find more
in the GNSO project list).

he/she will follow closely the progress in that area, alert if there is
anything coming for PC to consider, giving short briefing and update,
optionally coordinate with other members active or expert  in the PDP e.g.
members in the WG
We should also ensure that we are getting updates from those involved in
the different working groups and also our representatives. same for NCSG
GNSO councillors

we also tend to discuss mostly in NCSG confcall, maybe we need to explore
if there are other ways to discuss and do planning more regularly e.g.
doing some planning every Monday for example via mail thread to check the
status of comments drafting, any new public comment to consider etc.
planning should be a continuous activity here, to be lead by the PC chair.

we don't need some heaving planning or project management here but ensuring
that we get a process and enough people to do so. of course, all these
should be documented in our wiki space.
if people are ok to start the discussion, I will be happy to copy the
straw-man to google doc to make it more easier to capture comments. Maryam
or me can add you to trello.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151222/2ec47e1d/attachment-0001.html>