UA-discuss

Download

ua-discuss@icann.org

August 2019

28 participants
15 discussions

Re: [UA-discuss] Some Recommendations in Working Groups
by Sarmad Hussain Aug. 9, 2019

Aug. 9, 2019

Dear All, Thank you all for the feedback and suggestions for the working group chairs. The UASG leadership has been discussing the input and has also reviewed the UASG charter and operational documents for this purpose. The process for the appointment of chairs of the working groups shared in the draft working group charters is based on roles assigned to the UASG chair<https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/07-Position-Description-Chair-…> and vice-chairs<https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/07-Position-Description-Vice-C…> following the UASG charter. The UASG leadership team certainly intends to regard the input from the working groups (based on a rough consensus), while ensuring that the chairs of the working groups have the requisite technical expertise for UASG to best achieve its stated mission and goals. Regards, Sarmad From: UA-EAI <ua-eai-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet(a)gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 3:04 PM To: Harry Jacob <internetsafetyweek(a)gmail.com> Cc: "ua-discuss(a)icann.org" <ua-discuss(a)icann.org>, "ua-eai(a)icann.org" <ua-eai(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [UA-EAI] [UA-discuss] Some Recommendations in Working Groups Dear Sarmad and all, Please see my comment inline On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:02 AM Harry Jacob <internetsafetyweek(a)gmail.com<mailto:internetsafetyweek@gmail.com>> wrote: 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 document. "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." I will suggest this to be informed of a crop that allow working group members to apply. This should not only be centered only on active member, but to encourage working group members that are willing to learn and be active in contributing towards the objective of UA. There should be measures to guide this. 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. Yes, that's true. I started to understand ICANN better when I started attending face to face meeting. I was able to better understand the purpose of UA during the Marrakech meeting. 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(a)jdlh.com<mailto:list%2Buasg@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. I think much importance is attached to the chair because the chair determines and steer the group to achieve set objectives. However, the chair must have basic leadership requirements, but not necessarily 100% technical. More importantly, the group must have a solid operational procedure for the working group. ...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. My understanding of this statement is that it encourages as much as diverse participation in the working group leadership, preventing conflict of interest and distraction to fulfil the set goals. It is not stating that qualified and expertise should not participate in the working group, but not in the leadership of the working group to encourage people for leadership. For clarity, I proposed "fundamentally that individual member nominated shall not hold any leadership position in the UA administrative group or any other working groups at the same time. 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(a)jdlh.com<mailto:jdlh@jdlh.com> http://blog.jdlh.com/ [blog.jdlh.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blog.jdlh.com_&d=DwMFaQ…> (http://jdlh.com/ [jdlh.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__jdlh.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Fm…>) 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). 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. _______________________________________________ UA-EAI mailing list UA-EAI(a)icann.org<mailto:UA-EAI@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ua-eai _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). 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. -- [Image removed by sender.][about.me]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__about.me_petertaiwoaki…> Peter Taiwo Akinremi about.me/petertaiwoakinremi [about.me]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__about.me_petertaiwoaki…>

2 1

Re: [UA-discuss] [UA-EAI] [Ext] Re: UA-EAI WG charter
by richard nims Aug. 9, 2019

Aug. 9, 2019

3 2

Evaluation of Major Email Software and Services for EAI Support
by Sarmad Hussain Aug. 6, 2019

Aug. 6, 2019

Dear All, UASG has undertaken an evaluation of email software and services for EAI support, as per the details below. The report and associated documentation is being shared for your review and feedback, before it is finalized and published. The first phase of this project, Discovery and Analysis, was completed September 2018 and published on the UASG’s website as UASG021A<https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/UASG021A.pdf>. That initial phase selected a broad set of components from the email software ecosystem to be analyzed, defined the test criteria to use when evaluating a particular piece of software, and provided an estimate of the effort required to evaluate a select few representative software and service offerings from that set. The resulting Discovery and Analysis Report<https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/UASG021A.pdf> and accompanying test criteria<https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/UASG021A.xlsx> can be found on the UASG’s website. The second and current phase of this project comprises a Proof of Concept Evaluation. A targeted set of software and service providers have been evaluated according to the criteria detailed by UASG021A. The purpose of this phase is to: 1. Confirm whether the evaluation criteria developed in the UASG021A report are fair and reasonable, amending or clarifying them where necessary, 2. Develop a template for reporting future test results, and 3. Determine the amount of effort required to evaluate additional email software and service providers. The third and final phase of the project will provide a more complete evaluation of the email software ecosystem, including a larger number of components and informed by the experience of this pilot. Please share your feedback at ua-discuss(a)icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss@icann.org> by 25 August 2019. Please visit https://uasg.tech/subscribe to self-scribe to this email list. Regards, Sarmad

2 1

Technology readiness in open-source languages and frameworks
by Team Polyglot Aug. 3, 2019

Aug. 3, 2019

We would like to help with review and remediation for technological readiness of popular open-source languages and frameworks as this is exactly the kind of work we do day in and day out. (We're an open-source-only software development agency which works on improvements that are requested by multiple clients). I have seen the action plan document here: https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/UASG-FY20-Action-Plan.pdf Has any work begun on this task? "Determine the evaluation criteria for choosing Frameworks and Programming Languages. Include objective measures that can be used to see results." Here are some ideas to begin with: - IEEE Survey of programming languages: https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1333572# - TIOBE index: https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ - StackOverflow Developer survey: https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018#technology - GitHub: The state of the octoverse: https://octoverse.github.com/projects.html Once, we identify the top 20 languages and frameworks, we can build a test suite to continuously track the progress on technological readiness. Also, I am assuming that we would be including databases among the open-source tools which need to be reviewed. - Nilesh Polyglot.Network

1 0

Re: [UA-discuss] [Ext] Re: Draft Charter for Local Initiatives
by Sarmad Hussain Aug. 1, 2019

Aug. 1, 2019

Dear Roberto, Thank you for your input and support for local initiatives. It has been the intention to keep the charter for local initiative at high-level and flexible, while also keeping a focus on the UASG FY20 Action Plan. It is anticipated that there will be differences in how different local Initiatives may want to address the UA issues locally, and the proposal they develop will capture such solutions (and differences). However, please share if there are any particular clauses within the charter which you consider restrictive and suggestions on how these may be addressed. It is left to the community on how they would like to see a particular local initiative organized geographically. We anticipate different models, which could be limited to a country or territory, or may involve multiple countries (e.g. Middle East). These local initiatives will be working closely with other UASG Working Groups (on technology, EAI, Measurements and Communications) and UA-discuss list, which will allow the UASG community to work collaboratively and leverage the significant expertise available. We are aiming to start the work with the proposed model, while reviewing its effectiveness over time; this will allow us to adapt it as needed moving forward based on the experience gained. We look forward to your further feedback. Regards, Sarmad From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 3:19 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> Cc: Universal Acceptance <ua-discuss(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [UA-discuss] Draft Charter for Local Initiatives Dear Sarmad - and all, Kudos for the initiative. I personally believe that we need to promote local initiatives. This said, I wonder whether a formal charter so detailed will address best the need of getting more input from the local communities. Let’s put aside for the moment some objections on whether “one size fits all” and therefore whether a formally centralised decided charter will be the best option, and go to some o the practical aspects. I have no idea on what is the (geographical) size of the local initiative that is envisaged by this proposal. Are we talking about regions like “Middle East” or “Latin America”, or are we narrowing down to “South Caucasus” or even language minorities? In the former case, it might become a formal ratification of what can already exist - maybe using the ICANN regions as a model - but like almost every formalisation of the existent will not add anything that is really creating new opportunities. The latter case would be more interesting by far. But in this case, are we sure that a local, motivated and enthusiastic but resources-limited, community could comply with a charter like this? Maybe there are not enough local developers or experts, considering the detail of the required roles? My personal opinion - but I don’t want to get into philosophy - is that while the local communities can be by far our best option to identify the problems and the issues that have local impact due to the local specificity, the technical solution might best be addressed by a wide collaboration by technical experts. In simple words, the technical solution to an issue manifesting itself in Latin America can come from an expert living in SE-Asia. However, I might have missed some points in the initiative - in this case I would appreciate feedback helping me understand better. Cheers, Roberto On 19.07.2019, at 08:08, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Based on the UASG’s FY20 Action Plan [uasg.tech]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__uasg.tech_wp-2Dcontent…>, please find attached the draft charter for the Local Initiatives for your review and feedback. You are requested to share comments on ua-discuss(a)icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss@icann.org> email distribution list by 31 July, 2019. Regards, Sarmad <UASG Local Initiative - Charter 20190719.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). 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.

2 2