[NCUC-DISCUSS] [cip-ccg] Meeting Follow-Up & Next Steps | Next Meeting 14 May 2025 @ 14 UTC
Kathy Kleiman
Kathy at KathyKleiman.com
Thu May 15 18:32:10 CEST 2025
Dear Benjamin,
Thank you for your detailed and expert response. I am so glad you and
other NCSG members were in these discussions and fighting for balance
and fairness.
In your excellent responses to my questions (below, I think you have
outlined an excellent comment. You identified critical issues and I
join you in wondering aloud how a Stakeholder Group can be responsible
not only internally to its stakeholders, but "externally to the wider
ICANN community."
/Wow, absent some truly clear guidance and limits, this is a formula for
abuse and misuse.
/
We have a long and proud history in ICANN of honoring the dissenting
voices and listening to their concerns. This is not a "majority rules"
group, but a consensus-based one. The Internet needs to work for
everyone (at least all good faith participants) to have a voice - and
all Stakeholder Group voices are separate and distinct.
/The idea that we could drown out a legitimate minority voice by saying
somehow is not accountable to the larger community is heart-stopping./
I note further that every Stakeholder Group charter is reviewed by the
ICANN Board, and must be accepted by the ICANN Board. A lot of this
balance is considered upfront in our design and charter.
*May I recommend the following approach:*
*1) Can you put out a call for help in comment writing support?*
*2) Could you start a comment draft using your excellent commentary and
responses below?*
*3) Even if you feel your views were heard by the larger group, it is
still very fair to repeat our concerns with Principle 4, and seek
clearly explanation, guardrails and limits. A good principle with
terrible explanations and guardrails can be misused and abused, and that
would be dangerous to us and to ICANN.*
*4) We ask our commenters to think about definitions, recommendations,
guidance and limits we can offer...
*
*5) And we take this process /offline (/with those who want to help)
write the comment.
*
*Thank you, Benjamin, for your leadership!! Tx to everyone in NCUC and
other Noncommercials who joined you in this important work!*
*Best, Kathy*
On 5/14/2025 9:21 AM, Benjamin Akinmoyeje wrote:
> Dear Kathy,
> Thank you for the follow-up questions.
>
> As a representative of NCUC in the CIP CCG, a group with diverse
> stakeholders, it is difficult to be happy about the 5 principles;
> however, I can boldly say that the existing 5 principles have achieved
> consensus across the group members. The 5 principles were inspired by
> or extracted from the ICANN Bylaws.
>
> Here are the 5 Continuous improvement principles :
> 1. The SO, AC, or NomCom is fulfilling its purpose.
> 2. The structures of SO, AC, or NomCom are effective.
> 3. The operations of SO, AC, or NomCom are efficient.
> 4. The SO, AC, or NomCom is accountable internally to its stakeholders
> and substructures (where applicable), and externally to the wider
> ICANN community.
> 5. The SO, AC, or NomCom collaborates to further the mission of ICANN
> and the effectiveness of the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder model.
>
> The *4th principle* was a contentious item, and different stakeholders
> still have their take on it. The NCUC standpoint, which is also my
> belief, is that SO should only be accountable to its stakeholders.
> The *major* point of contention is that in the review process, it is
> difficult to create a one-size-fits-all review template for a diverse
> multistakeholder community. ICANN, each group has different ways of
> evaluating its improvements.
>
> /Are others from NCUC happy with the fairness of the negotiations and
> compromises? /
> There was a call for a group of volunteers to give feedback, and we
> met a handful of times to discuss the principles, as we were tasked
> with the duty to develop indicators for the principles, so I believe
> those of NCUC members who volunteered were satisfied that their input
> was communicated and reflected in the final outcome. However, it is
> important to remember that the principles are just a framework, and
> NCUC (SOs) have to continue to follow the CIP CCG process and ensure
> that they continue to shape the discussion as well as the outcome of
> the process. The implementation is also supposed to be flexible as
> applicable to each SO/AC (group).
>
> / Do they reflect good principles and protect all Stakeholders - are
> they something we can live with? /
> The principles stemming from ICANN bylaws and used as a framework
> (guide) appear to be a useful approach, as it is now left for the SOs
> to implement as they deem fit for their group. I have participated in
> the process to ensure the NCUC's interest and voice are considered,
> but our community must be vigilant and stay close to the process to
> ensure that we get the desired outcome.
>
> /Do you have ideas for how we keep the two projects from overlapping
> and causing extra, overlapping or duplicative work our (and all)
> already busy Stakeholder Groups?/
> The best way to keep the process from overlapping and causing extra
> work is for the Holistic Review Team to review and continue the CIP
> CCG work thus far and consult with some of their members who were part
> of the CIP CCG for some guidance. I believe this will help
> consolidate the efforts already expended on the CIP CCG.
> They can also consult the ICANN community anywhere there are
> contentions or difficulties.
>
> I hope these few explanations help somewhat as the conversation is
> still ongoing, even today, as I attend the CIP CCG meeting, I will
> have these questions in my hands. I will come back to the list if I
> get a clearer response to give.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Benjamin
>
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:43 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy at dnrc.tech> wrote:
>
> Dear Benjamin,
>
> Tx you for this detailed answer. Very much appreciated! It is
> exactly the type of detailed background, from an expert, that we
> need to proceed.
>
> Let me ask some follow-up questions: /As someone deeply involved
> in this issue, are you happy with the 5 principles of the
> Continuous Improvement Program? Are others from NCUC happy with
> the fairness of the negotiations and compromises? Do they reflect
> good principles and protect all Stakeholders - are they something
> we can live with?
> /
>
> Like you, I hear about the new (draft) Holistic Review and am not
> sure how it is different (or overlaps with) the Continuous
> Improvement Project -- /do you have ideas for how we keep the two
> projects from overlapping and causing extra, overlapping or
> duplicative work our (and all) already busy Stakeholder Groups?
> /
>
> Also, could you or someone who has worked with you on the
> important issues over these past many months, a draft of a short
> new set of comments-- perhaps based on the January 2025 one you
> shared and addressing the newest questions.
>
> You could lay out a path for NCSG to follow and we would very much
> appreciate it!
>
> Best and tx,
> Kathy
>
> On 5/12/2025 4:50 AM, Benjamin Akinmoyeje wrote:
>> Dear Kathy,
>> Thank you for bringing this concern up. Previously, we have made
>> efforts to explain the continuous improvement process group's
>> work on the mailing list, and we had a few members participate
>> and share their positions on the process. We have passed the
>> public comments period for this group's work. NCSG wrote a comment.
>>
>> The NCUC has indicated that we are to support the process,
>> especially that SO and ACs should be accountable to their members
>> and the community as indicated by ICANN's bylaws. We influenced
>> the final state of the five principles.
>> The concern we shared was in respect of duplication of effort
>> between CIP CCG and the Pilot Holistic Review Team.
>> During the process, the GNSO also adopted an approach to align
>> the different stakeholder Groups (SGs) on the CIP CCG, which is
>> running concurrently. This was done to ensure CIP CCG and the
>> Pilot Holistic Review Team's efforts consolidate with each other
>> and agree on the 5 principles of the continuous improvement
>> framework.
>>
>>
>> The *CIP-CCG *was formed to review whether the Continuous
>> Improvement Program Framework is fit for purpose for each
>> Supporting Organization, Advisory Committee, and the Nominating
>> Committee.
>> The Continuous Improvement Program Framework will strengthen the
>> existing culture of continuous improvement while enabling the
>> community groups to identify areas for improvement and work
>> toward these improvements in a way that works for them. By
>> adopting the proposed framework, the community groups can do what
>> makes sense for them while maintaining accountability to their
>> stakeholders and transparency to the ICANN community,
>> https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/continuous-improvement-program-framework-21-11-2024.
>>
>>
>> After months of work and community engagement, there was a public
>> call for comments, and NCSG made a comment as well as indicated
>> here in the draft document
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XD1et1aNM4i-6d0-Vklx1iY-AcPx0UN6TDnJE4rcxPI/edit?tab=t.0
>>
>> The questions asked by the public comments are these below:
>>
>> *Question 1*. Whether the Continuous Improvement Program
>> Framework is fit for purpose to evolve Organizational Reviews led
>> by Independent Examiners into a Continuous Improvement Program
>> led by the ICANN community, to inform the eventual Holistic Review
>>
>> * a.* Do you agree with the five principles, based on the current
>> Organizational Review objectives described in the ICANN Bylaws,
>> to apply across the organizational structures (SOs, ACs, and the
>> NomCom)?
>> *Question 2*. Agreement for the Continuous Improvement Program
>> Framework to be adopted by each SO, AC, and the NomCom:
>> * a*.Do you agree with the plan for the next steps to carry the
>> Continuous Improvement Program out in two, 3-year assessment periods?
>>
>> This was a final call to encourage anyone who may still have any
>> opinion on the issue to have an opportunity to add their voice to
>> the conversation, it will also help our representatives to have
>> some points to discuss at the next meeting.
>>
>> I hope I answered the questions, I am willing to explain further
>> without boring you with too much information.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Benjamin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 3:48 PM Kathy Kleiman
>> <Kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Benjamin and anyone else who has been participating in
>> this process,
>>
>> Often our leaders (and those who are following an issue) lead
>> the writing of the comments. You are the ones who know what
>> was discussed and debated, what tentative decisions and new
>> proposals are controversial, and where are the rough edges
>> that our comments can help to smooth.
>>
>> It is very difficult from someone completely outside the
>> process to come in "cold" and draft comments.
>>
>> /Benjamin, I ask you and others involved with the CIP CCG:
>> What do you like? What concerns you? As people involved in
>> this process, what issues would be helped by an NCUC comment?/
>>
>> Best and many tx, Kathy
>>
>> On 5/9/2025 1:43 AM, Benjamin Akinmoyeje wrote:
>>> Apologies for cross-posting, I just want to bring this to
>>> your attention.
>>>
>>> I want to encourage members to review the CIP CCG
>>> (Continuous Improvement Process Cross-Community Group) for
>>> any additional comments you may wish to add directly to the
>>> Public Comment Response Tracker
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WiMGcNFESEJxvisbc6wcIA2l-G9pPOEELmz1B0CSEUg/edit?gid=1643030715*gid=1643030715__;Iw!!PtGJab4!6a5k3apVyYAzAXwbvk1_bXwLqh1_da70xDCL_UhHwZ108jtsPlSiBWLWg048vgSL8HQkBi8wf6tB2l2rkTpRiJFbow$>.
>>>
>>>
>>> It only requires a short time to review all the feedback
>>> received and documented.
>>>
>>> Have your final say on the process and help us to report
>>> your contributions at the next meeting.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Benjamin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 8:21 PM Caleb Ogundele
>>> <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Everyone,
>>> This is a follow-up regarding the previous update on the
>>> ongoing work in the CIP CCG (Continuous Improvement
>>> Process Cross-Community Group).
>>> As progress continues, the latest staff email (included
>>> in the thread below) indicates that we are now at the
>>> final feedback stage. There are two ways to provide input:
>>>
>>> For collective feedback, please reach out so that we can
>>> incorporate your input in the comment tracker before the
>>> final text is drafted.
>>>
>>> This community consultation process aims to ensure
>>> everyone is included before finalizing the verbiage. We
>>> welcome your contributions and thoughts on this matter.
>>>
>>> Special thanks to those who have already shared their
>>> insights, and particular appreciation to Pedro de
>>> Perdigão Lana for his excellent work during the Public
>>> Comment period.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> *Caleb Ogundele
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>> From: *Jessica Puccio via cip-ccg* <cip-ccg at icann.org>
>>> Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 10:20 AM
>>> Subject: [cip-ccg] Meeting Follow-Up & Next Steps | Next
>>> Meeting 14 May 2025 @ 14 UTC
>>> To: cip-ccg at icann.org <cip-ccg at icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear CIP-CCG Members -
>>>
>>> On Wednesday we walked through feedback to Q2.a and
>>> welcome any final thoughts or revisions to the verbiage.
>>> Any additional comments may be added directly to the
>>> Public Comment Response Tracker.
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WiMGcNFESEJxvisbc6wcIA2l-G9pPOEELmz1B0CSEUg/edit?gid=1643030715*gid=1643030715__;Iw!!PtGJab4!6a5k3apVyYAzAXwbvk1_bXwLqh1_da70xDCL_UhHwZ108jtsPlSiBWLWg048vgSL8HQkBi8wf6tB2l2rkTpRiJFbow$>If
>>> no further concerns are raised by *07 May 2025*, we’ll
>>> proceed with drafting the final verbiage, as currently
>>> shown, for publication on the CIP-CCG community wiki
>>> <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/gveKBg>and
>>> in the Public Comment proceeding page
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/continuous-improvement-program-framework-21-11-2024>.
>>>
>>> During the next call on *14 May 2025 at 14 UTC*, we will
>>> plan for *90-minutes* to discuss the framework document
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RCz6PJcA7Y32geWgxdDawqqFc7RU1juLaRNdhaG_pwY/edit?usp=sharing>,
>>> focusing on the sections where updates were suggested
>>> based on the Public Comment feedback and agreed to by
>>> the CIP-CIG. Please take the time to review the proposed
>>> updates prior to the next call. If time permits, we will
>>> continue our discussion of the appendix and the
>>> finalization of the framework.
>>>
>>> We appreciate your time and consideration.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jessica Puccio
>>>
>>> Sr Coordinator, Review Support and Accountability Projects
>>>
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>> (ICANN <http://www.icann.org/>)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cip-ccg mailing list -- cip-ccg at icann.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to cip-ccg-leave at icann.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Caleb Ogundele*
>>> Email: muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
> --
> Kathy Kleiman
> Past President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20250515/fd2b71cc/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list