[DC] Update on joint submission to MAG - ACTION NEEDED

Tue Feb 23 11:39:46 EST 2016

Dear Olivier, all,

Indeed, when Eleonore wrote last, the paper had not been submitted, but now it has. As Eleonore wrote earlier, there is still a possibility of tweaking the paper -- the deadline has been extended until tomorrow, also to to others who requested such an extension.

My apologies if I wasn't sufficiently clear. The Secretariat's first version of the synthesis paper will reflect, presumably in a footnote, all endorsements received by cob this coming Friday. A revised version of the synthesis paper will be issued a week prior to the April meeting. This final version will be updated and include all endorsements received after the 26 February deadline.

I am sorry if I present you with" a choice between a rock and a hard place", as you put it. This seems mainly due to the fact that we seem to continue to have different opinions on the status of the earlier paper. I made the point earlier that the other paper presented a snapshot of the discussion among the DCs immediately after the Joao Pessoa meeting. We used it as a basis for our discussion since then. As the discussion has moved on, it is not surprising that it contains some views that differ from the first paper. Jeremy's paper focuses on how to deal with a DC main session. The intention is to put down a marker to advocate for another such session and suggest some improvements based on last year's experience. We did  not want to overload the boat and deliberately left out the collaboration and coordination between DCs.

However, we attach equal importance to this aspect. We built on the proposal contained in the first paper to create a coordinating committee and we have started drafting Terms of Reference for this committee. The intention is to conclude this process next month and present them to the MAG at the April meeting. 

Let me take a step back and look at where we started this process: there were some concerns voiced in the broader community about the work of the DCs. To put it bluntly: it was felt that there was a lack of common rules and principles. In order to remedy this perceived weakness, we have two options:
a) to be proactive and develop common rules and principles; or
b) leave it to the MAG to impose some rules on the DCs.
It was my understanding that the general feeling among the DCs was that option a) was the preferred way forward. This requires some caution and I think we are on right path with the process we have embarked on. In essence it captures much of what is contained in the first paper. 

Your comments as regards the process are well taken and for sure there is room for improvement. However, this also applies to the other paper. My main concern about that paper is that it is too political and could therefore risks being counterproductive with some of its demands. I tend to agree with Avri who wrote a week ago, and I quote: " that  I think to try and send this in now as a statement of the group is unwise and is something that the MAG, once it is constituted could well challenge.  If we want to create a structure that can be trusted to represent the consensus of the DCs, then we should come up with a consensus processes, one that has been discussed with the MAG,  before we start sending letters to the MAG as if we were a well formed group.  We are not that yet. " Unquote.

We are not there yet, but I think we are moving in the right direction.  We are planning to hold another call next month and I hope you will be able to join us on the call.

Best regards
Markus

Subject: Re: [DC] Update on joint submission to MAG - ACTION NEEDED
To: markuskummer at outlook.com; dc at intgovforum.org
From: ocl at gih.com
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:13:29 +0100

    Dear Markus,

    thank you for your kind message. My comments are in-line:

    On 23/02/2016 11:02, Markus Kummer
      wrote:

      Dear all,

        Meanwhile, the paper has been officially submitted. It will be
        reflected in a synthesis report the Secretariat intends to
        prepare. 

    I am *very* surprised, Markus. Just this Saturday Eleonora Mazzucchi
    said:

      The
          paper has not yet been submitted from what we have seen on our
          end. In that regard, I wanted to respond to Nicolo's request:
          the extension until Wednesday is also fine. This will allow a
          little more time to refine the text.

        Actual
          endorsements, as I said above, can still be accepted after the
          submission!

    Please be so kind to clarify this.

        All endorsements received by cob this coming Friday will be
        reflected in the first version of the synthesis paper that is
        expected to be posted next week. You can either add them on the
        google doc Jeremy has been preparing or make it known on this
        list (or use both of these options). The endorsements can be on
        behalf of the respective DC or in your personal capacity, should
        you not have sufficient time to get the approval of the DC.

    Understood. But I can let you know that, having signed the previous
    paper that was signed by nearly all the DCs, I am going to have a
    hard time supporting a paper that says exactly the opposite when it
    comes to organising the DC sessions. 

    I am also disappointed that none of the proposals of the previous
    paper have been carried over to the one that's being submitted.
    Summarising, the current paper's only focussing on idea rating
    sheets & the collecting of feedback. What about the coordination
    of all the DCs? What about helping the DCs produce tangible output?

        There will still be time to add names to the list (or "up-grade"
        your personal endorsement to a full DC endorsement) after that
        deadline, as the Secretariat agreed to keep the list open. An
        up-dated version of the synthesis paper will be posted one week
        ahead of the April MAG meeting/open consultations and will
        include all endorsements received by then.

        Your endorsement will add weight to the paper and the process we
        have started!

    I would love to add weight to the paper and process that's started,
    but I would point out that the process which has been used to
    produce the current paper is pretty poor. A first draft sent to the
    mailing list on 9th Feb and the paper submitted by 23rd Feb? That's
    14 days! In the future, please respect the fact that DCs are run by
    volunteers and that we have daytime jobs, that our members have
    daytime jobs too and that 14 days is way too short a time for
    significant feedback. It is the same thing I have been arguing with
    the ICANN Board regarding public comment periods: 40 days is barely
    enough to obtain real input from the edges. Has the proposed paper
    been sent to the DC mailing list in January, not only would we have
    had more feedback and input from the DCs represented here, but we
    would have probably seen more content in the paper and an actual
    active support by DCs.

    Sadly, right now, it's a choice between a rock and a hard place.

    Kindest regards,

    Olivier

    (acting DC-CIV Chair)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/dc_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160223/53ae800a/attachment.html>