[ME ICANN] [MEAC SWG] Kind reminder call for policy topics Re: ME Space @ ICANN 66

Wed Aug 28 09:59:23 UTC 2019

Dear All,

Just to flag a new blog posted by Brian Cute who is leading the Evolving ICANN's Mutlistakeholder Model (MSM) process >> https://go.icann.org/2UavLIk.

Thank you,

Fahd

From: <icann-meac-swg at googlegroups.com> on behalf of Tijani Ben Jemaa <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:55 PM
To: Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com>
Cc: "middle-east at icann.org" <middle-east at icann.org>, MEAC-SWG <icann-meac-swg at googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [ME ICANN] [MEAC SWG] Kind reminder call for policy topics Re: ME Space @ ICANN 66

Dear all,

I find the ME Space at ICANN 66 the best opportunity to give our region community opinion on this very topic. The resulting consensus statement would be our region's comment in the public comment platform. it will also be sent to the ICANN Board as usual.

So, again, Evolving ICANN Multi-Stakeholder Model is my preference. It's not that I don't agree to address the IDR which is in my opinion an excellent topic for our region, but this is the exact good time for evolving the ICANN MSM.

Tijani

Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com> a écrit :

Dear MEAC Community members,

Greetings to all,

I would like to thank the valued input from our active community members.

If you noticed that as lead to the ME Space we paused our input to the vibrant discussions, in the hope of hearing from you.

I'm trust that there are more among us have their perspective that we would like to hear. It could be in the form of supporting the proposed topics,  discussing the issue or suggesting new one.

Looking forward to more community input within the proposed timeline. 

Best wishes 

Nadira AL-Araj 

I

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 03:07 Hadia El Miniawi <hadiaminiawi at yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks Manal

Dear All,

Now that we have the document about the "Next steps to improve the effectiveness of ICANN's multi-stakeholder model" open for public comment, I would suggest to take a look at it and see if we would like to provide a statement. You can find the PDF at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/multistakeholder-model-next-steps-20aug19-en.pdf [icann.org]

The document addresses phase two which is about developing the work plan. 

The work plan will focus on four things:

 1. The issues to be addressed.

 2. Which entity or process will take on the task of developing and proposing a solution or approach       to address the issue (e.g. Advisory Committee, Supporting Organization, Community, ICANN              Board, ICANN organization)? 

3. The projected time frame when the owner of that task will deliver a proposed solution or approach       within fiscal years 2021-2025; and 

4. The estimated resources the issue owner will need to develop and propose a solution or approach        to address the issue. 

According to the document what you will need to do is to review the description of each issue and the impact it is having on ICANN’s MSM. Next the document identifies and provides links to potential solutions that are being developed through other work streams in ICANN. You are asked to review the potential solution that is being developed to determine if you think the work will solve the problem.  The questions which will need to be answered in the public comment are:

1. Is there an existing solution or a solution being developed in other work streams that could sufficiently address the issue? If yes, comment on how you think it will sufficiently address the issue. If there is an existing or potential solution being developed in the community that is not identified in this document, please identify that solution and explain whether it will sufficiently address the issue. If you have your own solution to an issue that you would like to suggest, please do so. 

2. If there isn’t a solution that will sufficiently address this issue, who should take on the task of developing a solution (e.g. Advisory Committee, Supporting Organization, community, ICANN Board, ICANN organization)? Please be specific about which entity or which community process should take on the task. 

3. How would you prioritize the issue?

Although the other two suggested topics are good as well, Amr's proposal though very important may be lost now amidst all the other hot topics and as for choukri's proposal, though we still have the time to make an impact, but the public comment period is actually closed and we now have the opportunity to tackle an actually open one. As said above, I would suggest that we read the above document and if we find that we would like to provide feedback, then lets go ahead and make our ICANN 66 statement about the next steps to improve the effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model (The development of the work plan)

Best

Hadia

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019, 01:25:57 AM GMT+2, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

Dear All ..

Following our discussion, kindly note that ICANN org has now opened the public comment period on how to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model [icann.org] .. 

This may provide more information and help colleagues to decide whether to comment in Montreal or at a following meeting ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: icann-meac-swg at googlegroups.com [mailto:icann-meac-swg at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 11:53 PM
To: Amr Elsadr; Nadira Alaraj
Cc: MEAC-SWG; middle-east at icann.org
Subject: RE: [ME ICANN] [MEAC SWG] Kind reminder call for policy topics Re: ME Space @ ICANN 66

Many thanks Amr and Chokri for your proposals .. I take your points .. I believe the 3 topics are important and of interest .. So maybe some guidance on:

-          where each process stands,

-          what’s expected from the community in Montreal and beyond,

-          ….

Would guide our discussions and help us prioritize the topics, decide what would be timely and influential if submitted in Montreal, and maybe consider the remaining 2 topics in following meetings if their timelines allow ..

I’m totally flexible and look forward to hearing what everyone thinks ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 3:37 PM
To: Nadira Alaraj
Cc: MEAC-SWG; middle-east at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] [MEAC SWG] Kind reminder call for policy topics Re: ME Space @ ICANN 66

Hi again,

I’d like to share a thought on the suggested topics, if I may. First, for the sake of clarification, my proposal is on Internationalized Registration Data (IRD), not Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). This concerns data submitted by registrants upon registering a gTLD (or ccTLD) domain name. I didn’t include any of the substantive policy issues or recommendations in the body of my previous email, but those are all available in the links I shared, for anyone who is interested in reviewing them. I’d also be happy to answer any questions (to the best of my ability) on the issue, so feel free to share them here (probably best on a different thread).

All three proposed topics (by Manal, Chokri and myself) are clearly relevant and important, but I’d like to explain why I personally prefer IRD as a topic of at least some focus by the MEAC ICANN community. The “Evolving ICANN Multi-Stakeholder Model” is clearly one that is of great importance, and seemingly one of high priority to ICANN Org. Similarly, the “Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews” topic is one that is of very high interest to the ICANN community as a whole. They are both very deserving of the MEAC’s attention and participation.

Having said that, IRD is different in a couple of respects. IRD is a topic on which there is far less interest, even among stakeholders who are regularly engaged in gTLD policy development. It might be presumptuous of me to make that statement, but at a minimum, there has been little-to-no progress on this issue in years now. On the other hand, the main beneficiaries of resolution of policy development on this topic are those communities around the world whose languages/scripts are not based on the Latin alphabet, such as those who are from the MEAC region. Allowing registrants the option to submit registration data in local languages/scripts is something I personally believe should be afforded, provided that there is a practical way to get this done. This view seems to be shared by the IRD EWG, and is reflected in their recommendations.

IMO, this topic also requires a champion(s); a part of the community that will keep an eye on this, and continue to remind the broader ICANN community that it merits serious attention and follow-up. Right now is probably not the best time for the GNSO, and other SOs and ACs to start this, but it is important that it doesn’t become a topic that is completely forgotten because of other events taking place that are understandably overwhelming the community’s bandwidth and resources. It seems to me that the MEAC ICANN community is one such group that should be all over this. If we don’t or are unable to emphasize the importance of policy issues that are of regional significance to us, then we shouldn’t really expect the rest of the community to take on this role on our behalf.

Still…, this topic is not as time-sensitive as other high-interest ones, like the ones Manal and Chokri proposed. It’s one that can wait, and isn’t absolutely necessary to raise at ICANN66. If this is something the rest of this group would like to take a little more time becoming familiar with, that is also fine by me. For my part, my intention was really just to bring it to the attention of subscribers to this mailing list.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Aug 26, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

Thank you Hadia for sharing your insights on the 3 proposed topics by Amr, Manal and Chokri.

I will note your support on the 3 topics.

Nadira 

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 14:26 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

I also support chokri's proposal. The public comments report was published July 30th and we could still have an effective input if we wish.

Best

Hadia

From: icann-meac-swg at googlegroups.com [mailto:icann-meac-swg at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nadira Alaraj
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 12:03 PM
To: Chokri Ben Romdhane
Cc: Tijani BENJEMAA; middle-east at icann.org; MEAC-SWG
Subject: Re: [MEAC SWG] Kind reminder call for policy topics Re: ME Space @ ICANN 66

Thank you Chokri for your comments on  “Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model”  that I personally support.

If this topic got selected the ME input will be on the second stage or the points that you've raised.

As for your topic: "Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews [icann.org]"

It is noted and I hope it will gain the community support.

Nadira

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 12:54 Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Manal and all,

Personaly , I would like to support Manal proposal since   the effectiveness of the ICANN MSM   is crucial issue in which we should get involved  ,

 but from what I know  the next  stage of this work , as announced during ICANN65  by the independent team managing this job  ,  is to assigne to every issue  the corespondent  constituencies or actors  that will be responsible for its evolvement , I don't know if It will be useful for us to trigger a statement about this  assignment?

if not  I would like to propose another crucial topic: "Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews [icann.org]" .

Friendly

Chokri

Le dim. 25 août 2019 à 23:50, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> a écrit :

Dear Nadira, Tijani and All ..

Apologies for my weak participation on this mailing list, due to work load .. I still follow the discussions though a bit delayed ..

Following your emails I would like to propose “Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model” as a topic for ICANN66 ME Space .. It’s not a policy topic but a topic that has to do with the existing model and current process and aligns with ICANN Strategic Plan 2021-2025 [icann.org] – Strategic Objective #2 on Governance, aiming at improving the effectiveness of ICANN’s multistakeholder model of governance ..

Community discussions identified an initial list of 21 issues [icann.org] that are preventing ICANN’s multistakeholder model from functioning more effectively and efficiently .. The 21 issues were then merged and consolidated to a final list of 11 issues [icann.org], namely:

1.       Prioritization of Work

2.       Precision in scoping the work

3.       Costs

4.       Representativeness + Inclusiveness

5.       Consensus

6.       Terms

7.       Recruitment + Demographics

8.       Complexity

9.       Efficient Use of Resources

10.    Culture + Trust + Silos

11.    Roles and Responsibilities + Holistic View of ICANN

Worth noting that, here will be a community discussion on this topic on the Thursday of the Montreal week, per the announced Block Schedule, and I believe it would be a good opportunity if the ME space compiles input on few issues of interest to our region and present it during the session (similar to the excellent intervention on Universal Acceptance in Marrakech, thanks to everyone who was involved) ..

You may find additional information on this page [icann.org] ..

@Baher @Fahd, should this be agreed, appreciate if you can check the exact version of the document that will be discussed in Montreal ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: icann-meac-swg at googlegroups.com [mailto:icann-meac-swg at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nadira Alaraj
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 8:10 AM
To: Tijani BENJEMAA
Cc: middle-east at icann.org; MEAC-SWG
Subject: [MEAC SWG] Kind reminder call for policy topics Re: ME Space @ ICANN 66

Dear All, 

I would like to encourage the community members to propose ICANN Topics to bring attention to our  collective voice.

You don't have to be travelling to ICANN 66 in order to propose a topic. 

The ME statement for ICANN Kobe was a success in spite many of the drafting team were able to attend the meeting.  

Looking forward hearing from you,

Best wishes,

Nadira AL-Araj 

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 10:16 Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn> wrote:

Dear all,

Preparing for the ME Space in Montreal, the leading team Tijani Ben Jemaa, and Nadira Al-Araj would like to propose to the MEAC community the following timeline:

DateDaysAction
August 19 - 3012Call for topics
September 2 Announcement of the selected Topic
September 2 - 1311Call for volunteers for the drafting team
September 16 Announcement of the drafting team composition
September 16 - 3014Drafting of the statement (1st draft)
September 30 Publishing of the 1st draft for comments
Sept. 30 to October 1010Comment period for the 1st draft of the statement
October 11 - 188Drafting of the final version
October 21 Final draft published

We therefore call on you to propose your preferred topic to be addressed at ICANN 66 in Montreal.

The chosen topics should be current and of high interest at ICANN.

Please provide your choice before Friday 30th August 2019 at 23:59 UTC.
Best regards

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BENJEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Telephone: +216 52 385 114
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-swg+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/CAJdpWNDLvz2sfJ-72F1uTJuMQHUrrm14CeySPDSVOjC5MsqGWA%40mail.gmail.com [groups.google.com].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-swg+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/57932b43adf94238b330227a25d6ccdf%40ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG [groups.google.com].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-swg+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/CAJdpWNDvxH%2B1z%3DRM8-mO96eXBGv_tKuaDn_1LszB%2B-QQ6wCFZw%40mail.gmail.com [groups.google.com].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-swg+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/67a8691554bf4fa295ae3f595b14a4f1%40ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG [groups.google.com].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-swg+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/b662d3da6d72410696fa3875e405f84c%40ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG [groups.google.com].

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BENJEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Telephone: +216 52 385 114
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-swg+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/20190828095518.Horde.dfTkldM7Km4Nev12851IPFK%40webmail.topnet.tn [groups.google.com].

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/middle-east/attachments/20190828/bc53b429/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4616 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/middle-east/attachments/20190828/bc53b429/smime-0001.p7s>