[CCWG-ACCT] Feedback requested - CCWG Engagement plan

Kieren McCarthy kieren at kierenmccarthy.com
Thu Apr 30 17:41:42 UTC 2015

Very sorry for the delay in getting back. My thoughts on engagement below:


* The docs I have read so far aren't actually structured to get public
comment. They are a (long) report on what the group has done. So,

* What do you want people to comment on?

Do you want them to say: good luck, keep trucking.
Do you want them to give approval on the approach?
Do you want them to give approval of the broad plan?
Do you want comments on specific ideas?
Do you want people to say if they are opposed or in favor of specific
Do you want people to ask for more information on specific aspects?

You need to agree on exactly what kind of feedback you want. Otherwise you
will get very little useful comment.

I would argue strongly that you need to create an entirely new document
that is structured entirely around asking a few key questions. The main
report can then be provided as a reference.

The report should have graphics, highlights, nothing at all about process
and clear point for feedback including - importantly at this stage - the
ability to ask questions that this group them provides specific answers to
later on.


I would say there are three main groups of people that you need input from.
I would recommend coming up with a strategy for each.

1. Others in the transition process but not following this aspect or caught
up in one particular aspect and looking for the bigger picture. As things
stand, this is the group that is being most catered to. It is also the
easiest group to cater for. But, as a result, it is not the group that you
should be spending the bulk of your efforts chasing - they will come anyway.

2. The broader internet community. That means all the people that are
interested but have given up trying to follow the process. It means people
that go to ICANN meetings. And it means the IETF etc. At the moment, this
group is poorly catered for. You might get a small number of people tuning
in who are interested but have not been following the transition process
closely. But as things stand, their eyes are going to rapidly glaze over.

There needs to be much clearer and simpler communication around what is
being proposed, and what the group wants feedback on. Any and all
descriptions about the process or the amount of work done, and so on have
to be ditched. This group does not care and will not care. But they do care
about the end result and they will want to be informed and then heard.

3. Washington DC. This is a vital group to inform, whether you like it or
not. Without the accountability work, this whole thing could fall apart.
Plus, if Washington is kept informed and its concerns are listened to, it
would also be a vital ally in actually getting the proposals introduced. If
Congress says something has to happen for transition, the DoC will take
that on board and ICANN will just have to get over itself and do it.

My recommendation for outreach to DC would be to ask the people in this
process that are well versed in how Washington works to take the broad
goals of public comments and the report and come up with their own
materials and strategy. Then come back to the group for approval.

If it were me, I would approach: the IP folk - who are extremely adept at
talking to Congress and have all the necessary contacts; Steve Del Bianco,
who is known and respected in DC in this field; and Phillip Corwin who also
knows his way around.

Unfortunately I would suggest not including ICANN staff because of the
difficult relationship they have in DC and their inability not to meddle,
although it would smart and wise and maybe even useful to keep the staff
involved in open and honest communication.

If you wish to get some press attention - which is often a very effective
way to be heard in DC (The Hill, Politico, maybe Washington Post) - then I
would recommend Brad White of ICANN in DC. He knows all the outlets and the
reporters trust him in a way they do not trust ICANN's other staff.

A few very concise, very focused briefings on the hill (they also will not
care in the slightest about the process only the proposed outcomes), some
credible people talking - Mathieu for example, Del Bianco, maybe Keith
Drazek - some follow-up, and this group in particular could be in a
position to turn around the whole DC conversation.

So that's my advice for what it's worth. I hope it's not coming too late to
be useful.


On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>

>  Dear Colleagues,
> Thank you Kieren for these valuable comments. You rightly point out that
> our plan was focusing on the materials and channels rather than the
> stakeholders to engage with. I wonder if you or others have ideas about our
> priorities in that regard.
> of course, SO and ACs, as well as the Board, are directly involved in the
> process and are high priority. But beyond that ? Do you feel it's more
> important to engage with stakeholders in Washington, in internet governance
> circles, in the wider community ?
> And I am a firm supporter of *listening* (what they want to hear) as the
> best engagement strategy.
> Best
> Mathieu
> Le 16/04/2015 00:22, Kieren McCarthy a écrit :
> Hi all,
>  Re: outreach. What you have is good from the perspective of getting the
> information across but it assumes that people will find out about this, or
> will care enough to turn up to listen.
>  If you want a broad range of voices, I would suggest that the first step
> is to identify all those that you wish to comment, and all those that have
> expressed interest in the past and develop a system for actively
> approaching them.
>  And then ask them what *they* want to hear about - it may be different
> from what you want to tell them.
>  Also, I think it would pay off significantly if you spent some time
> figuring out how to let people provide you with feedback in the easiest
> possible way for them (i.e. not adopt the default of emailed responses to a
> 20-page document).
>  Hope these observations are helpful.
>  Kieren
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> wrote:
>> Mathieu, all:
>>  I think that this looks like a good plan at a high level.
>>  I guess to make it work will be necessary to get the materials and
>> scheduling available ASAP once our First Public Comment Report is done.
>>  Given our schedule, I wonder if 29 April is too early for the webinar,
>> but happy to be flexible about it.
>>  cheers
>> Jordan
>> On 10 April 2015 at 08:34, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> As discussed, we are moving this discussion to the list as our time on
>>> the calls is pretty busy with more urgent matters.
>>> We have put together a proposed engagement plan to help disseminate and
>>> socialize the progress we have made to date. Attached and below you will
>>> find an outline of our suggested toolkit for your consideration. The
>>> engagement plan was essentially designed to help set the stage for our
>>> public comment period and prepare for discussions to be held at the ICANN
>>> meeting in Buenos Aires. As we ran out of time on our call last week to
>>> discuss the plan, we would be very grateful if you could please share any
>>> objections or comments you may have by 16/04.
>>> Webinars
>>> Webinars are an excellent tool to walk interested individuals through
>>> our milestones and initial conclusions. Together with a Q&A, it is a great
>>> way to provide a comprehensive overview of our mandate, activities and
>>> collect some initial feedback to guide us through our next steps or
>>> identify areas that need clarification, if any. We suggest organizing a
>>> repeat session to accommodate all timezones. Webinars are recorded,
>>> transcribed and ICANN may also book language services, as deemed needed. We
>>> suggest locking 09:00-10:30 UTC and 18:00-19:30 UTC on Wednesday, 29 April.
>>> Interviews
>>> Interviews are a great way for us to share our unique perspectives and
>>> to explain the process in our own words. We suggest continuing this
>>> outreach effort as work evolves.
>>> Videos
>>> We suggest creating a video which would be a compilation of pods
>>> assembling storytelling information and progress updates using, among other
>>> things, excerpts from interviews,  nteractive graphics to facilitate and
>>> deepen understanding of our work and of how it is bridged to other
>>> processes. The Xplane team would help translate the process into graphics.
>>> The video could be a good way to reach a broader audience.
>>> Mailing-List
>>> We would like to suggest setting up a mailing-list where anyone would be
>>> in a position to send feedback or comments on an ongoing basis. This list
>>> would be an additional avenue for the community to submit feedback. We
>>> suggest kicking this off after our public comment closes to allow for
>>> continuous feedback. This is a tool that has been very useful in some
>>> processes: the ATRT for instance.
>>> Members
>>> Activities led by members of the CCWG to update their respective
>>> memberships (and beyond) are of essence in socializing the work of the CCWG
>>> and Cochairs recognize all the efforts that are being conducted. It is a
>>> key component of the engagement plan altogether. Sharing discussions held
>>> with your communities and flagging issues that were brought up – if any –
>>> will help us prepare for the public comment period and proactively unearth
>>> some of the issues and concerns that might be raised to address them before
>>> our report is issued. Receiving this information will help us get a sense
>>> of what will be problematic and optimize the outcome of our public comment
>>> period.
>>> We look forward to your feedback.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Best regards
>>> Mathieu
>>> --
>>> *****************************
>>> Mathieu WEILL
>>> AFNIC - directeur général
>>> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006>
>>> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> Twitter : @mathieuweill
>>> *****************************
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>   --
>>   Jordan Carter
>> Chief Executive
>> *InternetNZ*
>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 <%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob)
>> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> Skype: jordancarter
>> *A better world through a better Internet *
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> --
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150430/025c4719/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list