[PC-NCSG] Comment on Draft Operating Plan

Tue Jan 6 06:18:14 EET 2015

Hi Ed,

thanks for this. I sent previously a note to ICANN staff responsible for
this public comment  regarding submitting late within next days. I would
welcome adding some comments to the statement and updating it as a SG
submission.

@Amr I think that will be your first call as PC chair :)

As a small comment: as I am a non-english native and expressing a
controversial position here , I am cautious about multilingualism in
inflating number. I am worried that can end up as a trap of not real
engagement and instead encouraging a form of ghettoization, creating a
dependance or worse being just a PR for ICANN. as arabic speaker, I see a
lot of material translated in arabic language but I have no evidence that
such measure improved the number of participants beyond the usual suspects.
another form of trap would be conflating internationalization with
multilingualism.

Best Regards,

Rafik

2015-01-06 12:35 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <emorris at milk.toast.net>:

>
> Hi everybody,
>
> With the Reply period closing tonight I threw together a last minute
> public comment on ICANN's Draft Five Year Operating Plan and submitted
> it as a personal comment in my name. If anybody would be interested in
> putting together a late submission on behalf of the NCSG (my submission
> certainly can be improved upon) I'd be happy to work together on that. The
> OP is a fairly important document and I wanted to at least get something
> submitted on behalf of the noncommercial community. Text of my submission
> follows.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> ---
>
> I would first like to thank the ICANN staff for the considerable effort
> they have put into developing the Draft 5 Year Operating Plan. Although a
> member of both the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the
> Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG), and currently representing the
> later on the GNSO Council, these comments and questions are solely my own
> and do not necessarily reflect the concerns or positions of any
> organization of which I am a member.
>
> First, a general comment. While I genuinely like the Metric / Dependency /
> Phasing design of the Plan, in the future I would like to see more
> specificity in the Key Performance Indicators (Metrics) and Phasing
> sections of the Plan. Instead of mentioning the criteria in general terms,
> specific targeted goals, often numeric in nature, should be indicated. This
> document should be useful not only as a guide going forward for ICANN staff
> and management, but should also be purposed for use by the community in
> evaluating the performance of staff and management.  The metrics and
> phasing text in this document is too vague to allow for its extensive use
> in this manner.
>
>
> Questions / Comments
>
>
> 1. I applaud strategic goal 1.1 (S.G. 1.1), to ?further globalize and
> regionalize ICANN functions.?  Yet I am concerned that the only mention of
> languages is a commitment to making ?meeting sessions available in multiple
> languages; languages / scripts represented in ICANN community
> participation?.  ICANN needs to do better.
>
> I?m not sure what entirely is meant by the later part of this commitment.
> If it is a commitment for ICANN to assist community groups such as SO?s and
> AC?s to better operate in multiple language I applaud this offering. No
> longer should or can ICANN afford to operate at any level solely in the
> English language. Specifics as to the programmatic assistance ICANN intends
> to provide the community would be most welcome. I am concerned that there
> is no specific mention of any aspect of languages in the phasing section of
> S.G. 1.1. Languages themselves are not even mentioned in S.G. 1.2 (regional
> engagement), which itself must be an error of omission.
>
> I am also concerned about the term ?multiple languages?. Simply
> translating meetings and materials into the six official United Nations
> languages is not sufficient. There are ten languages in the world with over
> 100 million native speakers; 60 languages with over 20 million native
> speakers. If ICANN truly wants to globalize and regionalize ICANN functions
> it needs to commit to produce basic materials in as many languages as
> possible and to expand intelligently the number of languages it offers more
> extensive services, such as real time translation of meetings, in.
>
> One can not participate in ICANN if one can not understand any of what is
> going on. ?One World / One Internet? is only a phrase unless and until
> ICANN?s communications and participatory strategies encompass a truly
> global linguistic commitment. The Finnish speaking teenager in Ivalo, the
> Begali speaking grandma in Kolkata and the Korean speaking teacher in Yanji
> all should have online access to basic ICANN documents in their native
> tongue.
>
> 2. I am very concerned about the indication in the FY 17 Phasing of S.G.
> 1.3 that SO/AC special request processes are to be discontinued. At a time
> when the ICANN community is being asked to do more and more, a reduced
> financial commitment by ICANN to the community is unwise. Are there plans
> to replace the special request process with other programs of financial
> assistance? If so, what are they?
>
> 3. In the S.G. 3.3 portfolio mention is made of ICANN Technical
> University. This institution is mentioned nowhere else in this document nor
> is indexed by the major search engines. Please educate myself and the
> community on the nature of our own I.T.U. and it?s proposed role in
> ?developing a globally diverse culture of expertise? (S.G. 3.3).
>
> 4. Although certainly supportive of S.G. 4.1 (?Encourage engagement with
> the existing Internet governance ecosystem at national, regional and global
> levels?) I question whether the single metric (?number of MOU?s with
> international organizations with mutual recognition of roles with ICANN?)
> in S.G. 4.1 is an exhaustive performance indicator for this S.G. Surely
> engagement must extend beyond formal institution to institution agreements
> and should include engagement and participation by community members, ICANN
> staff and Board in the wider IG world and vice versa. Metrics for this type
> of engagement should be developed and included in S.G. 4.
>
> 5. While certainly supporting the participation of more governments within
> the GAC (sole metric for S.G. 4.2), I do question why this stakeholder is
> receiving such special consideration in the five year draft plan as opposed
> to other stakeholders. Indeed, much of Strategic Objective 4 (?Promote
> ICANN?s Role and Multistakeholder Approach) is government and IGO centric
> to the exclusion of all other stakeholders. This certainly is not true
> multistakeholderism, a concept ICANN lauds in philosophy but often has
> trouble implementing in practice.
>
> I would suggest that ICANN needs to commit itself to helping strengthen
> the commitment of all identifiable stakeholder groups to the global
> Internet ecosystem, and not to give special consideration to a group,
> governments, which are already privileged both in the ICANN governance
> structure and elsewhere.
>
> 6. S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a ?steward of the public interest? as
> part of Strategic Objective 5: ? Develop and Implement a Global Public
> Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN?s Mission?. The sole metric of S.G. 5.1
> refers to a ?common consensus based definition of public interest?. Does
> such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it?  If not, how does
> ICANN propose to develop one?
>
>
> Thank you for considering these comments.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Edward Morris
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150106/543e0472/attachment-0001.html>