[UA-discuss] [Ext] Draft Charter for Local Initiatives
sarmad.hussain at icann.org
Thu Aug 1 17:16:45 UTC 2019
Thank you Roberto.
Your point is well taken. We will try to clarify this in the language in the membership section.
From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 10:04 PM
To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org>
Cc: Universal Acceptance <ua-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ext] [UA-discuss] Draft Charter for Local Initiatives
I appreciate the intention of keeping the charter flexible to adapt to local situations.
I will try to be more specific in explaining my worry - maybe an example will help.
The charter states:
1. Based on the variety of work to be undertaken, a broad base of expertise is desirable in a local initiative, including the following
and a list of expertise/roles follows.
It might well be that some local communities do not have people available to cover some of the roles. My worry is that they do not initiate a Local Initiative because of this.
So I would suggest that while the understanding of the local situations and peculiarity is a requirement, some expertise on other topics, for instance technical competence, might come from a centralised pool of resources.
The reason why I mention this is that I would like to see local initiatives starting sooner rather than later, and I would hate to see delays coming from the fact that some local groups believe that they do not fulfil all the requirements.
On 23.07.2019, at 12:44, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain at icann.org>> wrote:
Thank you for your input and support for local initiatives.
It has been the intention to keep the charter for local initiative at high-level and flexible, while also keeping a focus on the UASG FY20 Action Plan. It is anticipated that there will be differences in how different local Initiatives may want to address the UA issues locally, and the proposal they develop will capture such solutions (and differences). However, please share if there are any particular clauses within the charter which you consider restrictive and suggestions on how these may be addressed.
It is left to the community on how they would like to see a particular local initiative organized geographically. We anticipate different models, which could be limited to a country or territory, or may involve multiple countries (e.g. Middle East).
These local initiatives will be working closely with other UASG Working Groups (on technology, EAI, Measurements and Communications) and UA-discuss list, which will allow the UASG community to work collaboratively and leverage the significant expertise available.
We are aiming to start the work with the proposed model, while reviewing its effectiveness over time; this will allow us to adapt it as needed moving forward based on the experience gained.
We look forward to your further feedback.
From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com<mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 3:19 AM
To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain at icann.org>>
Cc: Universal Acceptance <ua-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss at icann.org>>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [UA-discuss] Draft Charter for Local Initiatives
Dear Sarmad - and all,
Kudos for the initiative. I personally believe that we need to promote local initiatives.
This said, I wonder whether a formal charter so detailed will address best the need of getting more input from the local communities.
Let’s put aside for the moment some objections on whether “one size fits all” and therefore whether a formally centralised decided charter will be the best option, and go to some o the practical aspects.
I have no idea on what is the (geographical) size of the local initiative that is envisaged by this proposal. Are we talking about regions like “Middle East” or “Latin America”, or are we narrowing down to “South Caucasus” or even language minorities?
In the former case, it might become a formal ratification of what can already exist - maybe using the ICANN regions as a model - but like almost every formalisation of the existent will not add anything that is really creating new opportunities.
The latter case would be more interesting by far. But in this case, are we sure that a local, motivated and enthusiastic but resources-limited, community could comply with a charter like this? Maybe there are not enough local developers or experts, considering the detail of the required roles?
My personal opinion - but I don’t want to get into philosophy - is that while the local communities can be by far our best option to identify the problems and the issues that have local impact due to the local specificity, the technical solution might best be addressed by a wide collaboration by technical experts. In simple words, the technical solution to an issue manifesting itself in Latin America can come from an expert living in SE-Asia.
However, I might have missed some points in the initiative - in this case I would appreciate feedback helping me understand better.
On 19.07.2019, at 08:08, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain at icann.org>> wrote:
Based on the UASG’s FY20 Action Plan [uasg.tech]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__uasg.tech_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2019_06_UASG-2DFY20-2DAction-2DPlan.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=5_m1bVHGBvJ07-GrwxA6k5ALGxPkos1SDj2iu6ij7-I&s=8T9zQMn5k0ZRodxDIl8lcKs4svI7Z6s-HSvBZ5SlFoE&e=>, please find attached the draft charter for the Local Initiatives for your review and feedback.
You are requested to share comments on ua-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss at icann.org> email distribution list by 31 July, 2019.
<UASG Local Initiative - Charter 20190719.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the UA-discuss