[CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls

Sun Oct 12 18:46:31 UTC 2014

Hi Greg and all,

I definitely agree with the views shared about short time-line. However i
will also like to suggest that we start the process and see how far we can
go while we concurrently ask ICANN for more resources that will enhance the
process. I see some free spaces on the agenda[1] and am wondering whether
those can be used for the CWG meeting purposes?.

I think we also need to remember that the names has relatively lots of
interest than the other 2 communities so i will expect that there will be
quite a lot of proposals and the task of this CWG is to as soon as possible
get the RFP call out and determine how to effectively review and come up
with a final proposal to be submitted to ICG. So while we are deliberating
on the over-all timeline, i will suggest we work with the tentative one
that gets the RFP call out as soon as possible. 4 things that may be
important right now:

- Have a tentative time-line
- Agree on the leaderships and roles (chairs/vice et all)
- Produce RFP for proposal and publish call
- While call is on, keep ourselves busy on the submitted proposal review
process

Overall we need to move on (ofcourse without risking the loss of a
bottom-up process ;) )

Cheers!

Regards
1. http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The larger issue is the size of our task. We have in many ways a task as
> difficult as the ICG, with less time, less resources, less support, and
> less acknowledgement of the gravity of our task.  Under the structure the
> ICG is "just" supposed to coordinate the IANA transition proposals.  We
> actually have to craft the proposal from the names community.  And I assume
> that we want to do this in a bottom-up, consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder
> fashion. And as Chuck just noted, this is intertwined with the whole issue
> of accountability.
>
> The ICG is meeting for a full day this week.  We are meeting for 90
> minutes (while eating lunch).
>
> In my "day job," when managing expectations, I sometimes cite an imaginary
> sign that hangs behind my desk -- "Fast, Cheap, Good.  Pick Any Two."
>
> I think that applies here as well.  If we are going to do the job we are
> supposed to do to the level of quality we want in the time allotted, we --
> and ICANN -- will need to devote significant resources to doing it.  For
> most of us, that resource is time. Yet, as most of us are essentially
> volunteers, that is a limited resource. so, even if we "give until it
> hurts," there's only so much we can do.
>
> In order to make the best and highest use of that limited resource, ICANN
> is going to have to devote more of its resources to our task.  (Translation
> is just one potential example.)  If that doesn't happen, we will be hard
> pressed to be both "Fast" and "Good."  And, since we must be "Good," if
> anything gives way, it will be the desire to be "Fast."
>
> So maybe we need to put it to ICANN (as well as to ourselves): "Fast,
> Cheap, Good: Pick Any Two.  And one of them has to be Good."
>
> Greg Shatan
> On Oct 12, 2014 9:36 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
>>  But let’s put on paper what needs to be done to do that starting from
>> where we are now and moving forward instead of starting from where we want
>> to end up.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:37 PM
>> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
>>
>>
>>
>> Both as an ICG member and as a participant in this CWG, I would urge us
>> not to decide in advance that the deadline cannot be met. Try to meet it
>> first, if you can’t then extend it.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:51 PM
>> *To:* Kieren McCarthy; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
>>
>>
>>
>> I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as
>> he indicates at least in part, they will require more time.  To do a valid
>> bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of
>> January 15.  This will move the date out further.  But that is okay in my
>> opinion.  It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at
>> the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for
>> our work including translation services and send that to the ICG.  It is
>> insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them
>> why with a reasonable target.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
>> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM
>> *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition:
>> there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it
>> with the other group's deadline)
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate
>> the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other
>> languages.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages
>> other than English is going to require significantly more planning than
>> just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically
>> tight.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing
>> its information and considering comments in languages other than English
>> and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that
>> can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has
>> provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and
>> comment on the proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in
>> December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly
>> compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably.
>>
>>
>>
>> 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send
>> a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for
>> translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT
>> this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis
>> where most of the writing is done in the last few days.
>>
>>
>>
>> 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a
>> translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline.
>>
>>
>>
>> 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English
>> comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen
>> language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for
>> translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end
>> of the comment period.
>>
>>
>>
>> 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English
>> speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining
>> ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is
>> important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need
>> to respond.
>>
>>
>>
>> Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in
>> English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in
>> other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline
>> passes.
>>
>>
>>
>> In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and
>> energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English
>> speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes.
>>
>>
>>
>> 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for
>> whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I
>> think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular
>> process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process
>> languages other than English will be given equal consideration.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My thoughts, hope they are helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kieren
>>
>>
>> -
>> [sent through phone]
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Jonathan,
>> Dear Byron,
>>
>> I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list
>> sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG.
>> May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to
>> interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under
>> review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the
>> ICANN language policy.
>>
>> I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with
>> following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do
>> not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> > Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship
>> > Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
>> >
>> > The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship
>> Transition
>> > (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship
>> > Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA
>> > Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on
>> > Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
>> >
>> > Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going
>> > to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to
>> > operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the
>> > CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN
>> > language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised,
>> ICANN
>> > should set the standard in this process.
>> >
>> > Kindest regards,
>> >
>> > Olivier MJ CrÃ©pin-Leblond
>> > (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141012/644a94a4/attachment-0001.html>