Tip: you may want to consult the Public Comments-Open page on ICANN.org because that is the place where a stratification might have maximum value, especially if the list of titles in the table were more extensive than it is presently.
Example of one possible classification scheme created by ICANN Staff:
Category |
Description |
|---|---|
Policy Development |
…for all policy activities in the pre-implementation phases (including Issue Reports) as well as formal Policy Development Processes. |
Policy Implementation |
...for all policy activities in the post-development or implementation phase. |
Security/Stability/Resiliency |
...operational, administrative, and registration matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems. |
ICANN Bylaws Amendment |
…used only when the Board is considering an amendment; prospective requests or petitions to change Bylaws provisions prior to Board action should be initially coded to another category. |
Structural Design/Improvement |
…would include SO/AC Reviews; GNSO Improvements; global outreach; public participation. |
Operations/Finance |
…includes tactical and strategic planning; budgeting; ICANN meeting proposals; travel support. |
Accountability/Transparency |
…includes Affirmation of Commitments. |
Contracted Party Agreements |
…primarily intended for Registry & Registrar contracts. |
IANA/DNSSEC Operations |
...for all IANA service and process introductions, or changes, including performance reporting. |
Illustration of how the Open Public Comments topic table might look if categories were included:
Open for Comments Now
Title |
Category |
Close Date [UTC Time] |
|---|---|---|
New GNSO Policy Development Process |
Policy Development |
9 July 2011 [23:59] |
How Do We Raise Global Awareness of New gTLDs? |
Policy Implementation |
15 July 2011 [23:59] |
Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP |
Policy Development |
15 July 2011 [23:59] |
WHOIS Policy Review Team – Discussion Paper |
Policy Development |
23 July 2011 [23:59] |
Expanding Developing Economies Participation in the New gTLD Program |
Policy Implementation |
29 July 2011 [23:59] |
Created by: Ken Bour
16 Comments
Don Blumenthal
For registry purposes, I am not sure that categorization/stratification would help determine whether to participate in a Public Comment solicitation. The range of issues that could be of interest to registries is such that at least some members are likely to look at all solicitations. However, it might help others with narrower ranges of interest. Non-contracted parties come to mind as a possibiity, but Jonathan is in a better position to speak to that. Categorization could have other value such as providing a means of grouping public comment requests and making it more clear what audiences might be affected.
Ken Bour
Thanks, Don. We will look forward to Jonathan's input on this question as well.
Regarding your last sentence (above), could you elaborate a bit more on what you have in mind? Are you thinking that stratification might be more useful if it identified the audiences who should participate? Would that be an additional field (e.g., Intended Audience?) or a reconfiguration of the stratification idea away from topic/subject categories and more toward the communities of interest?
Ken
Don Blumenthal
Ken,
I was suggesting that stratification might help groups focus on issues of interest more quickly. I don't think that categorization by communities of interest is a good idea because many questions will cross community lines, sometimes in ways that might be apparent only within a given group.
Don
Sokol Haxhiu
I think stratification can be more useful if the audience is identified. Also, by inserting an additional column for identification of topics of interest, the audience will have a easier time for pinpointing the areas of interest and finding what they need.
sokol
Jonathan Zuck
Just for purposes of discussion (because I have not acquired any sort of consensus on this yet!), I would like to suggest that a more vertical set of categories would be far more useful. It's my experience that peolple and organizations have pet causes that cross between many of these categories. If I'm the IPC, I"m interested in IPR issues whether they are part of the policy development or policy implementation process. I think very few people or organizations have an affinity for the phase in which an issue finds itself or the organizational bucket under which it is being addressed inside ICANN. This probably makes for a larger set of categories (and perhaps the ideal would be to have two types of categories) but I think it would be far more useful. Some of these, like Transparency and Accountability, Security/Stability, etc. fit the bill but others such as Policy Implementation (which is an overlap if it remains) are less useful. I'd like to see more like "Security" and perhaps have a longer list. Make sense? What do others think?
Jonathan
Ken Bour
Jonathan:
If I understand your suggestion, it is that the stratification categories might be more useful if they were attuned to community interests rather than how ICANN classifies them internally. If we were to combine that suggestion with the registration/notication idea in the other thread (see Q2), then they would nicely combine to keep people informed of those topics upon which they are most likely to comment.
How might we perfect a set of categories that are mutually exclusive and capture the way ICANN community members would find most useful? Also, the buckets would have to be relatively easy for Staff to assign topics.
Ken
Jonathan Zuck
You DO understand and they are very related and, in the end, I think the true answer to prioritization as well. So yes, the expression of actual categories is the challenge. I posted the EU categories as an example. I don't know what sort of database sits at the bottom of all this but there's a type of relational database relationship called many-to-many which would allow you to assign multimple categories to each comment period so the need for absolute mutual exclusivity would be alleviated.
I have this out as a question to the leadership of the CSG so I hope to get some feedback as to specific categories that might work but I'm sure we could come up with a set of categories that would be close to perfect while not perfect. There might be some that have to fall under other, etc.
Jonathan
Sokol Haxhiu
I am sure that any database would allow for a many-to-many relationship and this would better help the present the crossover of categories.
sokol
Don Blumenthal
Certain categories could be useful for different purposes. As an example, I don't think that Policy Development and Policy Implementation would be helpful for potential commenters, and clearly will cross over with many other categories. However, they could be convenient labels for later review of comments and the status of pending issues.
In addition, some matters may involve more than one substantive area, and I'm not sure that it's feasible to come up with a list of categories that will cover all constituency interest areas without getting out of control.
A solution to the first point and maybe the second would be the ability to assign multiple categories to a request for comments.
Jonathan Zuck
For reference, here's the EU consultation notification categories:
Fields of interest for e-mail alerts on consultations
* Choose one or more fields. If you agree, you will automatically be alerted about any Commission consultations in these fields (e-mail to your designated contact persons).
Agriculture
Audiovisual and media
Budget
Climate action
Competition
Consumer affairs
Culture
Customs
Development
Economic affairs
Education
Employment and social affairs
Energy
Enlargement
Enterprise
Environment
Equal opportunities
External relations
External trade
Fisheries and aquaculture
Food safety
Foreign and security policy
General and institutional affairs
Humanitarian aid
Information society
Internal market
Justice and home affairs
Public health
Regional policy
Research and technology
Sport
Taxation
Trans-European networks
Transport
Youth
Frederic Guillemaut
Hello All :
To help people finding their way in the public comments, having accurate categories is, yes, a good idea.The problem is that many topics are crossing lines.
For exemple : Policy Development would probably be linked sooner or later to Contracted Party Agreements.
Moreover, in some cases it might be hard for staff to define categories.
So I do not think we should go deeper in the classification but maybe use another dimension and include impacted parties in the definitions.
The classification as indicated is helpful, but for registrars, we need to look at many topics, as it might have impact on our business. So adding a tag like 'will impact XXX constituency' to public comments topics would be a plus, even if I understand it would then be a responsibility for Icann staff to use this tag.
So in summary : Yes, this classification will help, but might also be improved.
Don Blumenthal
I agree that periodic crossover is inevitable no matter how granular the categories are.
However, I'm not sure that labeling an item as being of interest to any particular constituency(ies) would be useful. ICANN staff can't be aware of all issues that a group might be interested in discussing, As a result, I would not use that information when scanning comments to see if the registries, for example, would find the comment request relevant.
Jonathan Zuck
I think we're agreeing the current categories don't cut it because they are a little too process oriented and not interest area focused. I think we're agreeing that there should be the ability to assign a comment request to multiple categories.
We're probably agreeing that we won't think over every possible category so we'll need some generic buckets.
How do we start a list?
J
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
Dear All,
Given that not everyone is interested in all ICANN related policy discussions, some form of categorisation assigned to policies out for public comment would be useful. Persons could then sort and find those public comment policies that are of interest to them.
However, as noted, seeking a single appropriate category for each policy is a challenge because many policies do not simply fall into a single category of interest.
For example, a “policy on competition in new gTLDs” will be of interest to persons interested in:
A proper classification based on the issues would be more useful. ICANN should develop a classification that includes the ability to have multiple classifications or tags for each policy. This will enable the public to easily find the policies that affect their interests.
This will not work in a simple table format as shown, where a category column is displayed for the entire list of policies, but rather in a filter applied by the Internet user to show/hide policies out for comment that affect them or are of interest to them.
Categories like “Policy Development or “Policy Implementation” are not useful but possible categories like
could be more useful.
Such classifications should be in as plain language as possible without extensive acronyms that are in common use in the ICANN community. This would allow the general public to be able to actually comment in the “public comment” periods.
Frederic Guillemaut
I agree with Dev : we should avoid acronyms and maybe put an effort of translation, at least for the categories.
Public comments titles should be understandable from non-native english speking people.
I am not talking about allowing comments in all languages, that would be impossible to manage.
Sokol Haxhiu
I agree that by presenting the comments titles in main languages, more people will be drawn to the idea of providing such comments. However, even having the title in one language and the comment in another, does not make much sense.