[PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement

Tue Dec 22 13:02:00 EET 2015

Hi Ed

It is  about people, processes and then tools. If we agree on some
processes we can implement them  with some tools later (for example we can
use IFTT to create alerts, interact with other tool etc) . I won't worry
about how automate by tools for  now but about what we want to achieve
first . Tools alone won't fix problems.

I didnt suggest that all areas should be covered by councillors but I
mentioned that we can  have ncsg members expert in some area to take the
lead.

As I said it is strawman proposal to initiate discussion but also to
experiment .

Best,

Rafik

On Dec 22, 2015 6:47 PM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> Yes.
>
> Conceptually, at least.
>
> I like your template for public comments. There should be a way to
> automate a lot of this. Awareness of possible comments and deadlines are
> key. An updated NCSG web page focusing on this sort of thing can help with
> the structure. Social media, Twitter alerts in particular, can help with
> the herding and notifications. I hate to make people sad but mailing lists
> are your Dad's technology, used by academics and old people. Sorry. I'm
> getting old myself but as a non academic I have a bit different mentality.
> Lots of innovative social media portals out there and some of our less
> active members I know to be expert in them: we need their help. We need to
> activate the talents so many of our members have and I know would be
> willing to contribute in the right situation.
>
> As far as the assignment of members of the PC to specialize in certain
> areas, agreed. That is something the PC Chair should be able to do as part
> of her organization of the PC. It could be done in conjunction with
> orienting our Councillors in certain ways. It's something we are already
> doing informally at Council level. We probably need to make it a bit more
> formal.
>
> One thing we need to remember: the majority of the PC are our Councillors.
> With the demands already on our time we need to perform more of a
> coordination role on comments than a substantive role. All the systemic
> coordination in the world can't hide a basic fact: we need more people
> writing the comments. Over the past year I'd estimate there are no more
> than a half dozen of us who have done any substantial writing. Maybe a few
> more. Systems are great but without the bodies to populate them they are
> mere ideas.
>
> I know our NCSG Chair has a lot of plans along this line. Hr's only been
> in office about a month: we need to give him some time. The intercessional
> meeting in February should be an ideal place to talk this out, bring people
> together and try to take some small steps forward to making the PC more
> effective. It really needs to be a collaborative effort between the
> Councillors, the Constituencies and, most of all, our members.
>
> I would caution, however, about grand plans. Every year since I've been
> here we make plans for a revitalized PC. Somehow we wind up on crisis mode
> and never seem to
> Implement them.  I think a lot of what you have proposed,  Rafik, is
> implementable over a multi year period. Let's just try to take it a step at
> a time. In my view that means first automating as much of the informational
> and tracking aspects as we can, try to work on the timelines as  you've
> suggested, but in a soft way, and, for the interim, really support whoever
> steps up and volunteers to be PC Chair. In the end it's not as much about
> systems as it is about people. The former can be used to orient the later
> but until we have people to do the work...well, systems don't write the
> comments, people do. These things are not mutually exclusive, however, and
> hopefully we can make strides in multiple  areas in the year ahead.
>
> Thanks for starting the conversation, Rafik.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 22, 2015, at 2:19 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151222/cba4e0cb/attachment.html>