[Gac-gnso-cg] Overview of Active GNSO Working Groups

[Mike O'Connor]

hi all,

i like the direction this is going.  i would like to put in a request for “readability” and this seems like a good place to do that.  many of our documents have 

- very long sentences

- very long paragraphs

- very technical language

- many acronyms

- awkward sentence structure

i think it would be great if there could be some attention paid to copy-editing skills on the GNSO side.  it’s relevant to this GAC/GNSO work because i would guess that many GAC members have a hard time reading our announcements and documents.  *I* have a hard time reading some of our documents.  :-)

mikey


On Feb 19, 2014, at 4:11 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Dear Suzanne ..
>  
> Many thanks for your valuable feedback, being most experienced in working with the GNSO ..
> The IOC/Red Cross and IGOs issue was not on the shared list but I see your point and hope Marika's response addressed it ..
>  
> Regarding your comments on the privacy and proxy issue, the monthly one-pager was referenced for further details .. So do you think the issues are not clear enough in the one-pager or should be included in the short description ..
>  
> I believe, and I stand to be corrected, we now have 4 levels of details:
> -          WG listing by phase,
> -          Brief description of each,
> -          Further information included in the one-pager, and ultimately
> -          Full details available online
> I think we now need to agree, from a GAC perspective, how to utilize such information and whether we need more, less or in a different format ..
>  
> As to the day to day cooperation material and the objectives and expectations it include, I fully agree with you that we have to share them with the GAC and the GNSO for comment .. Same as we did with the finalized charter .. It is even indicated as one of our critical success factors in the charter "Ongoing consultations and consideration of received comments to ensure everyone is on board at each milestone" .. Yet I believe we need to share material/docs that has/have already been discussed and agreed upon by our consultation group .. So if group members are fine and have nothing more to add, modify or delete, I will hence ask for green light to further share with GAC chair and members, seeking their feedback on both the stated objectives and expectations as well as the described approach ..
>  
> Hope this sounds reasonable ..
>  
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell at ntia.doc.gov] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 7:39 PM
> To: Manal Ismail; Mike O'Connor
> Cc: gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [Gac-gnso-cg] Overview of Active GNSO Working Groups
>  
> Hi all, and thanks to Mikey and Manal for your thoughtful efforts to improve the presentation of this material; thanks of course as well to Marika and Olof for pulling it together.
>  
> I like Mikey’s idea of presenting the different initiatives in their stages, as that does make it easier to understand the status of individual initiatives.  I am still not sure, however, whether the material presented might need some further explanation.  For example, having already delivered GAC consensus advice to the ICANN Board on the IOC/Red Cross and IGOs, it’s not clear what input is being sought from the GNSO on the IGO/INGO matter.  As just one GAC member, I’m confused, and imagine others may well be too.
>  
> Re the privacy and proxy issue, which is of great interest (even though very few GAC members are engaged as yet), I wonder if the write up could lay out a bit more clearly what the issues are; it is the statement of issues (perhaps the scope of work?) that we’d want to use as a trigger for the GAC to determine whether and if so ,how, public policy matters should be taken into account.  I hope this makes sense; if not, just let me know and I’ll try again.
>  
> Rather than send two separate emails, I’m using this same message to respond to Manal’s second email with regard to the day to day cooperation material.  It strikes me that we might want to put the objectives and expectations out to the GAC and the GNSO for comment, as preparation for the Singapore meeting.  Since this is such an important project, I’d feel more confident if we conducted periodic reality checks, and since Singapore is a short 5 weeks away, I see that meeting as a golden opportunity to hear from our respective communities and, more importantly, to have them endorse this approach.  I hope I’m not out of sync with the rest of you, and would very much welcome your thoughts.  Thanks, Suz
>  
> Suzanne Murray Radell
> Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA
> 202-482-3167
>  
>  
>  
> From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:48 AM
> To: Mike O'Connor
> Cc: gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Overview of Active GNSO Working Groups
>  
> Thanks Mikey ..
> Thought it would be more interactive if I respond inline ..
> Pls read below ..
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike at haven2.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:53 PM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Marika Konings; gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Overview of Active GNSO Working Groups
>  
> hi Manal,
>  
> i agree — i think this is a useful way to share this info.  
>  
> [MI]: good J ..
>  
> as a person with a really short attention span, i would like to see the two sections reversed.  so the summary list goes first and then the details follow.  those long solid blocks of text in the detailed write up are hard to get through — but really helpful if one of the PDPs catches my eye and i want to learn more.  would you take that as a friendly amendment?
>  
> [MI]: fully agree .. you have a point .. thanks for the suggestion .. will do ..
>  
> i think your document would be really helpful for both the GAC AND the GNSO.  it’s a nice short summary of the “pipeline” of PDPs that seems easy to prepare and easy to digest.  and maybe a web version of it goes up on the GNSO web page and a link is included each time it’s distributed?  that way the world can quickly find out what is happening.
>  
> [MI]: first of all it’s your and Marika’s document J !! this is a mere copy and paste from what you have both sent .. I also like the web version suggestion .. let’s keep it in mind until we receive all suggestions ..
>  
> i also agree that there are interim-improvement opportunities here.  for example, i’m part of the Data and Metrics for Policy Making working group which is in the early stages of getting under way.  this would be a great working group for GAC members who are interested in improving our "fact-based policy making” capability.  since i’m also a member of this group, i could help any GAC volunteers find their way in what may be unfamiliar territory.
>  
> [MI]: agree .. although I’m embarrassed to say that I’ve found out that I’ve been contacted regarding the PDP on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information and have overlooked it !!! thanks for the kind offer to help ..
>  
> [MI]: will wait one more day, unless otherwise requested, to allow for more feedback before I forward to the GAC .. Thanks again for your feedback ..
>  
> mikey
>  
>  
> On Feb 18, 2014, at 6:24 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>  
> 
> Many thanks Marika and Mikey ..
> Extremely useful ..
>  
> With interim improvements in mind, I believe it may be useful to share both your messages on the GAC list, please see the attached file ..
> Do you, Jonathan or any of our group members feel uncomfortable about this?
>  
> Although I do not expect immediate feedback, yet:
> -          I believe it may be useful to share in preparation for our discussions in Singapore
> -          It may trigger a discussion on the best format to receive such info (a first step towards interim improvements)
> -          I hope it may trigger GAC members to join any of the active working groups
> -          In an ideal situation, GAC members joining any of the active working groups may provide us with real-time feedback to further fine tune our work
>  
> Please let me know what you think ..
>  
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 3:38 PM
> To: Marika Konings
> Cc: gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Overview of Active GNSO Working Groups
>  
> hi Marika,
> 
> this is a really cool list — all the PDPs, with the “stage of work” identified.
> 
> i wonder if this could also be sequenced by stage of work too.  that way, if i’m a person in the GAC that likes to participate in a given stage, i can see what’s in that category.
> 
> here’s my first try at reordering the list — showing the earliest-stage PDPs first and the latest-stage PDPs last with an eye to the desirability of early engagement.  i think this might be a really useful way to summarize the status of PDP development to the Council as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Stage 1: Identify and launch
> 
> 4.     Amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure to enable access to them by protected International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) – Preliminary Issue Report
>  
> Status: Preliminary Issue Report is expected to be published for public comment by the end of February 2014.
> 
> 6.     Cross Community Working Groups Non-PDP Drafting Team
>  
> Status: the DT is expected to submit the charter for consideration by the GNSO and ccNSO Council in Sinapore. Following adoption of the charter, a call for volunteers will be circulated to the community for participation.
> 
> 7.     Data & Metrics for Policy Making Non-PDP Working Group
>  
> Status: The GNSO Council adopted the charter for the working group in January 2014 and a call for volunteers has been launched (open to anyone interested to join). 
> 
> 
> 
> Stage 2: Develop consensus
> 
> 1.    Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Policy Development Process
> 
> Status: WG commenced in November 2013. Input has been requested to help inform its deliberations from all SO/ACs
> 
> 2.     Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process
> 
> Status: WG commenced in December 2013. Input has been requested to help inform its deliberations from all SO/ACs.
> 
> 5.     Policy & Implementation Non-PDP Working Group
> 
> Status: The WG started its deliberations in August 2013 and aims to publish an Initial Report for public comment by October 2014. Input was requested to help inform its deliberations from all SO/ACs.
> 
> 
> 
> Stage 3: Refine and endorse
> 
> 3.     Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Policy Development Process
>  
> Status: The Working Group is expected to publish its Initial Report for public comment prior to the ICANN meeting in Singapore. Input was requested at the early stages of the WG’s deliberations to help inform its deliberations from all SO/ACs.
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
> 
> <Active GNSO WGs.docx>
>  
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>  


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140219/bb438360/attachment-0001.html>