[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] [ALAC] HIT Topics for Marrakech

Holly Raiche h.raiche at internode.on.net
Sun May 12 06:38:08 UTC 2019

Maybe the first step is to go back to Jonathan since this is his suggestion to ICANN Org.  And maybe it isn’t an ICANN policy session - maybe in the first instance, it is a discussion by the CPWG on how to respond - and it may be that we gather all that we have said in the past into a coordinated response.

Indeed, look at all the issues raised in ATLAS II - which are now listed as completed. But are they ongoing issues?  

There is no question that a weekly CPWG meeting is one of the ALAC responses on having coordinated policy discussions so that we can identify and respond to issues of concern to ALAC.  Are there other things we should be doing/other things that others should be doing.  The joint ALAC/NCSG meetings  are another part of the answer - what else.

So maybe 10 minutes on this at the next CPWG?


> On May 12, 2019, at 4:26 PM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Then are you saying that one of the policy sessions we have in Marrakech should be to discuss and develop an ALAC statement for the public comment?
> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:43 PM Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>> wrote:
> I agree - surprisingly - with both Justine and Olivier.
> If you look at the Issues Page (the link one is instructed to use to provide comments), and the many comments quoted made about the challenges in participating  - many of which we have made (	time constraints, same people commenting, complexity of issues - pages that feel like someone has been listening in on ALAC conversations) then we need a process to respond to this, and so far, no comments have been made either on the ALAC policy page or the Issues Page.  So yes, this is ALAC’s opportunity both to set out our myriad difficulties in responding - and constructive suggestions.  We can do this on our own policy page - and then AS ALAC - add comments to the Issues Page (as we are instructed to do), or individuals can go straight to the Issues Page and make their own comments.  Either way, this is a issue ALAC has been talking about for ages and we need to at least agree on how to respond.  So maybe we need to schedule something in Marrakech where we can coordinate a response to the issue - or at least respond via the policy page.
> Holly
>> On May 11, 2019, at 6:09 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>> Dear Justine,
>> On 09/05/2019 14:27, Justine Chew wrote:
>>> I would say NOT #3 Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and implementation because UNLESS the goal for topic has changed substantially (and if someone can confirm this or otherwise) this topic has been suggested by ICANN Org in response to the request made by Jonathan Zuck at ICANN 64 in respect of the Board's reaction to the CCTRT Final Report recommendations. I think we should back Jonathan up on this, and it's an important CC topic.
>> But doesn't this do double duty with the policy commenting on: https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg <https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg> ?
>> Kindest regards,
>> Olivier
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>> _______________________________________________
>> registration-issues-wg mailing list
>> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190512/23d858af/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CPWG mailing list