[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: Next Steps

[Phil Corwin]

While this is not a request for comment it is an important request for data-based input.

So I agree that handling this in the same manner as a public comment should be used as part of an overall strategy for maximizing useful feedback.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 3:20 PM
To: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: Next Steps

Although I recognize the differences between this and a public comment, I think a public comment is closest to what we are doing.
In US regulatory terms, this is similar to a Notice of Inquiry rather than a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, but usually NOIs use the same channels as NPRMs.
If ICANN staff are flexible enough to adapt their boilerplate text to our specific purpose, I would prefer to see this handled as a public comment. We want it to be public-facing, we want there to be a specific deadline for filing responses, we want it to show up on ICANN’s tracking mechanism for public comments. It is not a survey and we should not use Survey Monkey, because fundamentally we are asking for cases or instances with links to documents. We might be able to get staff to set up a response form into which links to documents or cases could be put and more easily compiled.


Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy<http://spp.gatech.edu/>
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org/



From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:04 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: Next Steps

All,

As you probably know by now, the Questionnaire was approved without objection by the CCWG Plenary.  A copy of the final version is attached.

We now need to work on the next steps of publishing and announcing the Questionnaire.

The time period the questionnaire will be open is under discussion in a different thread in the CCWG-Accountability mailing list.  I urge you to contribute to that discussion.

The method of publication of the Questionnaire needs to be finalized, as does the method (or methods) of submission of responses.

Method:

The Questionnaire could be published on a webpage of the ICANN site in text and  submissions could be made by email (with the response either in email text or in attachments).

Alternatively, the Questionnaire could be published as a survey, using www.surveymonkey.com<http://www.surveymonkey.com> or Google Forms or some other application.  Survey/form inputs can help the process of aggregating the answers (e.g., Google Forms puts the answers on a spreadsheet).  However, since the answers will be free text fields and links, and could include documentary attachments, a survey form may not be ideal.

If we publish the Questionnaire on the ICANN website, the next question is where and how will it be published?

1.  One possibility is the ICANN Public Comment page.  The Public Comment page found at https://www.icann.org/public-comments describes Public Comments as follows:

Public Comment is a vital element in ICANN's decision-making process whereby the community is given an opportunity to comment upon proposals initiated by a working group or staff department.

This is not a Public Comment, since we are not asking for comment on a proposal. It might be misleading to announce the questionnaire on the Public Comment page and to publish it on a page formatted like a Public Comment and under the public comment taxonomy.  The Public Comment pages contain a lot of additional explanatory text that is not appropriate here.

2.  Another possibility is to announce the questionnaire on the IANA Stewardship & Accountability home page at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability.  This page is in the home page menu on https://www.icann.org/ (as is the Public Comment page).  The questionnaire can then be published under the stewardship-accountability taxonomy, and simply present the Questionnaire without other text.

There may be other possibilities.

Regardless, the Questionnaire can be publicized through the usual ICANN methods (e.g., News and Announcements on home page and News page (https://www.icann.org/news), ICANN Daily Digest, annouincements sent to SOAC contacts, etc.)

Please reply with any comments you may have.

Thanks!

Greg

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13754 - Release Date: 01/12/17
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170119/1d44f698/attachment-0001.html>