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

[James M. Bladel]

+1 Other James.

J.

On 4/28/15, 7:28 , "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