[CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sun Oct 12 19:19:53 UTC 2014 

I agree that public comment is an essential phase in our work, just as it
is regarding the deliverable from any WG.  But first we need a deliverable,
which should be developed using bottom up consensus driven
Multi-Stakeholder ("bucdMS") principles.
On Oct 12, 2014 12:07 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree that we need to move forward and cannot wait for improved
>> circumstances.
>>
>> However, I don't believe we are going to be preparing an RFP and putting
>> out a call for responses.  Rather, we are going to be preparing the names
>> community's response to the ICG's RFP. So, no need to keep ourselves busy
>> at any point in the near future. We are already busier than we imagine.
>>
> Hmm....okay, if preparing this is the route that this cross community
> working group (CWG) prefers then its fine. However before the response
> (names proposal) is forwarded to the ICG, it needs to under-go an
> adequately phased process for comments beyond this immediate working
> group(and open for comments beyond the name communities). This will also
> mean that there will be a need to have a process in-place to determine how
> the working group (WG) intends to receive these comments and process them
> in a transparent and inclusive manner.
>
> Cheers!
>
>> Greg
>> On Oct 12, 2014 11:47 AM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 Crépin-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 !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *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/20141012/2dc0bdb7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list