[PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement

Avri Doria avri
Tue Dec 22 15:17:18 EET 2015 

Hi,

I think it is too.  but without adequate vetting by the full membership
list, it is sort of a problem too.

avri


On 22-Dec-15 08:04, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 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> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list