[PC-NCSG] [NC-Intersessional] Fwd: Proposal for public comments process improvement

Fri Feb 12 03:27:19 EET 2016

Hi Ed,

(putting PC list in cc since that should be discussed there)
2016-02-09 21:20 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for this attempt to bring life to our PC.
>
> I have two comments:
>
> 1. The timeline would seem applicable to major public comments. Most
> public comments are on somewhat minor issues. We often don't comment on
> these but should. Perhaps a slimmed down version for the PC to follow could
> be used in such cases.
>

I used 40 days because it sounds the commonly used period (for example the
CCWG was 21 days which is unusual). there are other periods depending if is
staff, board or gnso initiated calls. it is just template and can be
adjusted for those cases. the milestones are there to give guidance and
allow some checking  . the dates X or Y can be V or W. it is up to us to
adapt them.

>
> 2. Councillors are already overburdened. I beg the Constituencies to
> select  as the additional four PC members individuals willing and able to
> take the lead on public comments. Being on the PC should not just entail
> voting. It should include a commitment to work.
>

I suggested to have different lead per area for expertise and it was not
exclusive to councillors. each councillor may have a specific interest on
some topic or policy issue , in addition to the time commitment and
workload. we are trying to fix a scaling problem here and since that needs
human resources , it would take more time (And it won't be fixed by
technological solution). we know some experts from within but definitely we
need more.

the purpose of the proposal is to fix some problem : how to allow some
planning for public comments, prioritizing it, assign a lead volunteers and
ensure that we get things done in time. the proposal is not aimed to fix
all perceived issues within PC. having it would help to get some clarity
about the ongoing PDPs, actions to be taken and planning. Public comments
are just part of the whole picture. for example, we are getting more
general discussion like Public interest and we need to find effective ways
to approach them.

Best,

Rafik

>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Rafik Dammak via NC-Intersessional" <nc-intersessional at icann.org>
> *Sent*: 09 February 2016 08:24
> *To*: "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> *Cc*: "nc-intersessional" <nc-intersessional at icann.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [NC-Intersessional] Fwd: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public
> comments process improvement
>
> Thanks Tapani, it will be nice if people comment it.
>
> Rafik
>
> 2016-02-04 3:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen via NC-Intersessional <
> nc-intersessional at icann.org>:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Rafik's message below never got the attention it deserves,
>> due to vacation times and what not, but it'd be worth
>> talking about during the intersessional, so please take
>> the time to read it.
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> -----
>>
>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement
>> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:19:21 +0900
>> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> _______________________________________________
>> NC-Intersessional mailing list
>> NC-Intersessional at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-intersessional
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160212/d335f1b2/attachment.html>