[CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls

Sun Oct 12 20:44:06 UTC 2014

Seun,

I don't understand where an RFP would come into play.

Chuck

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Seun Ojedeji
Date:10/12/2014 2:47 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" , Kieren McCarthy , cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]<mailto:[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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng<mailto: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/20141012/6f531a0c/attachment-0001.html>