[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