[UA-discuss] Some Recommendations in Working Groups

Harry Jacob internetsafetyweek at gmail.com
Wed Jul 31 06:26:40 UTC 2019

Dear Sarmad,

All inputs seems good to me and appreciated in working group charters. I
would only wish one feedback to be assimilated in membership area of the

*"Working group member must attend atleast two (2) F2F meeting in a
calendar year during ICANN or any other event where working group hold its
F2F meetings."*

*Reason of this recommendation:*  it’s much easier to build relationships
through face-to-face meetings and take constructive decisions than it is
with virtual meetings. *And relationships are without a doubt and every
individual opinion will be valued seriously*, *trust and no chase of
anonymously communication the key to any kind of working group success in
my opinion*.

It will be appreciated if UASG can fund only travel of these 2 F2F meetings
only for working group individuals who give their 90% presence even during
virtual meetings in that calendar year, this will lead to maximum
involvement of committed members and working group can deliver its mission.
It is always better to have the hard conversations face-to-face. So much
gets lost in translation otherwise, and a small problem can grow in a big
problem simply because we didn't make the effort to meet with someone
face-to-face to talk through the issue and work out a solution.

The real key here is to make them productive, smart, effective meetings,
not just irritating meetings that really are a waste of time.

Best Regards

Harry Jacob

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:51 AM Jim DeLaHunt <list+uasg at jdlh.com> wrote:

> Hello, UA-discuss.
> There is a lot to support in this message from Richard Nims. There are
> also some things which I think might not be so helpful. I will interleave
> comments in Richard's message.
> On 2019-07-29 04:06, richard nims wrote:
> ... [some text omitted for brevity] ...
> *Fundamental Principles of Operation*
> For the development of standards, openness and due process are mandatory.
> Openness means that any person who has, or could be reasonably expected to
> have, a direct and material interest, and who meets the requirements of
> these procedures has a right to participate by:
> a) Attending working group meetings
> b) Becoming a member of the working group
> c) Expressing a position for chair of working group and its basis,
> These are positive sentiments. I think there should be, at the top of the
> list, something about doing specific activities to promote Universal
> Acceptance, preferably outside the UA-Discuss and UASG context. We are not
> here to build an organisation for its own sake. We are here to spread
> Universal Acceptance. Authority should derive from accomplishments.
> Due process is based upon equity and fair play. The standards development
> process should strive to have both a balance of interests and not be
> dominated by any single interest category.
> I support these sentiments, but I also think they are pretty general and
> not very helpful to spread Universal Acceptance.
> *Election of Chair of working group: *The UASG administrative group must
> get elections done for every working group. The interested members of the
> working group must file self-nomination or any member of working group
> should nominate, ...
> I don't see why this proposal puts so much emphasis about electing the
> chair of the working group, and so little emphasis on how the group will
> work. What really matters is to spread Universal Acceptance in the real
> world.
> ...fundamentally that individual member nominated shall not be on any
> position in UA administrative group or any other working groups at the same
> time. Members of the working group should only be allowed to cast the vote
> and select chair of working group....
> This looks like it is trying to prevent or solve a problem, but I'm not
> sure what the problem is. Why shouldn't a leader of the UASG also
> participate in a regional working group for their own region?  Why
> shouldn't someone with expertise, or active in multiple regions,
> participate in multiple regional working groups?  Is there a concealed
> message that the UA administrative group is a danger to be kept at a
> distance?  If so, I don't agree with that.
> My experience with these working groups is that it is difficult to find
> people willing to get the work done. We should welcome anyone who wants to
> put in the effort.
> *Working Group: *Working group member should be individual. Each member
> is expected to attend meetings. We must record attendance at meetings via
> teleconferencing and/or electronic means, e.g., Internet conferencing,
> shall count towards the attendance requirements apart from F2F meeting
> during ICANN or other events.
> *Responsibilities of Working Group: *
> Set goals and deadlines and adhere to them
> Prioritize work to best serve the group and its goals
> Get the materials available for community related to working of group
> Maintain lists of unresolved issues, action items, and assignments.
> The working group will engage in a fact-finding effort of the perceived
> problems raised in there space and what are the possible solutions, and
> what are the pros and cons relating these possible solutions. What
> activities are actually underway, how extensive are they. The Working Group
> can circulated surveys to gather facts about the technical and issues
> raised by services currently being provided in there space.
> It seems to me that all this focusses on the operation and the internal
> activities of the working group. Nothing mentions the external activities
> of spreading Universal Acceptance in the real world. It seems a big
> oversight to me that the responsibilities of the working group does not
> include, "promote Universal Acceptance". It seems that before we expect
> members to attend meetings, we should expect them to do activities outside
> the meetings to spread Universal Acceptance, to contribute to Universal
> Acceptance discussion on email lists, and to have evidence of this activity
> be readily available for others to confirm.
> I have a concern that this proposal will set up a structure which will
> consume a lot of energy for its own internal operations and politics, and
> won't be very focussed on spreading Universal Acceptance. I think that is
> not the best way to direct our attention and energy.
> Kind wishes
> Richard Nims
> Best regards,
>      —Jim DeLaHunt, software engineer, Vancouver, Canada.
> --
>     --Jim DeLaHunt, jdlh at jdlh.com     http://blog.jdlh.com/ (http://jdlh.com/)
>       multilingual websites consultant
>       355-1027 Davie St, Vancouver BC V6E 4L2, Canada
>          Canada mobile +1-604-376-8953
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20190731/1d300bb8/attachment.html>

More information about the UA-discuss mailing list