[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines

Darcy Southwell darcy.southwell at endurance.com
Tue Apr 28 18:55:54 UTC 2015

+1 to both  theJames, Michele, Kathy, Stephanie, and Holly


From:  Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
Date:  Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 6:11 AM
To:  Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Cc:  "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - timelines

+ 1 James, Michele, Kathy, Stephanie.

On 28 Apr 2015, at 10:28 pm, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:

>  +1 James.
>  Kathy:
>>  My suggestion would be 60 days.
>>  To give some context to my own request/suggestion, for this specific policy
>> a quick count of people and groups that I have advised to use proxy services
>> to protect their identity and thus I would need to bring them up to speed:
>>  24 Registered charities, 9 countries, 2 don¹t speak any English and I would
>> need to organise our trusted translator for both of them. Each of those need
>> between 30-60 minutes as their level of technical expertise varies. So lets
>> call that 18 hours of engagement.
>>  Approximately 55 independent activists, people who are at extremely high
>> risk and need to be fully aware of the potential impact of this on their
>> work. However that number may be 54 as I haven¹t heard from a good friend of
>> mine in Kathmandu since the earthquake so maybe I can knock a day off my 60
>> day request for that? These guys are in over 20 countries, approximately half
>> don¹t speak English or French, so again for some I will need a translator to
>> be organised. I would guess about an hour for each of them, so that another
>> 54 hours.
>>  About 5 at risk business here in Ireland, ranging from sexual abuse support
>> groups to womens support groups. As they are local to me I can probably do a
>> group session, another 2 hours.
>>  So that¹s 74 hours of engagement directly, add another 16 hours of admin to
>> that to get a round number, 90 hours of engagement. So 2.25 hours a day for
>> 40 days. Working 7 days a week.
>>  All of my at risk support is pro-bono so my day job comes first as I have to
>> support my family and keep a roof over my head. That takes up 10-12 hours of
>> my working weekdays. Throw in some sleep of which I get very little and
>> trying to juggle pro-bono translators, availability of the people in question
>> and you can see that yes 40 days can suddenly start looking quite tight to
>> get feedback from the people who are going to be affected by this.
>>  I 100% understand that people want to get this finished and done with, I¹m
>> not disputing that at all, but lets just pause for a moment and realise the
>> amount of work that true outreach is for those of us who are working here
>> probono. Can it be done in 40 days? Yes. If further time is available will I
>> request it? Yes.
>>  The world of ICANN isn¹t going to fall apart with an extra 20 days on public
>> comment but allowing the public, and especially those who are going to be
>> directly affected by this policy, to have their say on the draft report is as
>> master card would say Œpriceless¹.
>>  I hope that gives you some feeling of the enormity of some of the outreach
>> that will be going on behind the scenes from my side of things, and I¹m not
>> the only one facing such a task!
>>  Now that¹s enough of a wall of text for today =) Speak to you all on todays
>> call.
>>  -James
>>  On 28/04/2015 09:53, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>>>  So please enlighten us James and Kathy, what would be a better timeline to
>>> ensure that everyone that could be impacted by this policy can review,
>>> understand and respond?
>>>  Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>  Internet Policy Counselor
>>>  MarkMonitor
>>>  415-419-9138 (m)
>>>  Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>>  On Apr 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>  With all due respect Kiran to the thousands of at risk registrants it may
>>>> well be rocket science.
>>>>  This policy to people who are not involved in policy development can be
>>>> rocket science, its a complex policy and one with far reaching consequences
>>>> on people who have very little idea how policies at ICANN work, they just
>>>> want to get on with the work that they do.
>>>>  On last weeks call many of us felt that even with the current timeline for
>>>> public comments that we may not be in a position to have much
>>>> contrstructive work out of the PC comment in BA anyway and we agreed that
>>>> we would revisit timing on this weeks call.
>>>>  So lets just remember that we are making choices and decisions that are
>>>> going to imact a lot of people with this policy, and while people who do
>>>> this for a living, or those of us who give up our free time to work on
>>>> stuff like this we have gotten used to the wording and the guts of the
>>>> policy, for many people they will read the initial report and give us
>>>> feedback and that will be their only interaction as they don¹t have the
>>>> option to be involved in the process at any other point as they don¹t have
>>>> the spare cycles in their very bust lives.
>>>>>  On 28/04/2015 02:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>>>>>  Delaying now robs us of a valuable opportunity to actually be productive
>>>>> in Buenos Aires. It may be 100 pages, but it ain't rocket science.
>  _______________________________________________
>  Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>  Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>  https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150428/2e9cb4fa/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list