[PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement
Kathy Kleiman
kathy
Tue Dec 22 15:04:28 EET 2015
And ultimately it is about the time people carve out from their
schedules to draft, edit, review and approve. I actually think it is
rather remarkable that we submit as much as we do.
Best,
Kathy
On 12/22/2015 4:47 AM, Edward Morris 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151222/245c36eb/attachment.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list