Hi all

Yes disagreeing w/ the "sales pitches" won't make them go away or
doesn't mean we can do other sessions.

And yes, there's a difference between Open Data and Information Transparency.

Still, there is so much to do on both ends.

It would be great really if these initiatives moved forward, faster,
better and we could be discussing things such as Open Contracting and
so reusable data.

So why it isn't?

I'm sure you'll find a variety of answers to the questions you posed
on types of data.

But how about the purpose of Open Data or Transparency, itself.

Why is data so vital like meeting recordings not easily accessible,
processed, transcribed, reused and linked to budget data?

Who is disagreeing that this data be accessible this way? Why?

So again, an investigation is very worthy and all but I'd really like
to see us go beyond that. As I said "concrete steps an example of open
data use cases and guidance to the community"

If this session manages to answer those questions and show
concreteness, I'd move forward with it.

Best,

Renata


On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Raoul Plommer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think ICANN's ODI (Open Data Initiative) impacts all the stakeholder
> groups and thus the whole community. We just need to know more of the
> quality of the data that ICANN administers. I was in the other one of the
> ODI meetings with Michael and I think he agrees that we need to know more of
> what they actually got.
>
> If ICANN told us that in advance of a cross community session, the whole
> community could start evaluating the possibilities and their impacts
> together.
>
> -Raoul
>
> On 11 December 2017 at 16:04, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> As someone who was in the sessions about Open Data in ICANN, I don't agree
>> with this being a cross community session.
>> I could not really see any concrete steps an example of open data use
>> cases and guidance to the community.
>>
>> On the other hand, there are pressing topics that still need to be
>> addressed.
>>
>> In preparation to ICANN63, shouldn't we have a cross community session to
>> re-examine the .cat case?
>> Whatever one's views on the political aspect of it all, the technical and
>> legal aspects are certainly of interest to ICANN community and I would
>> propose we gather a variety of community members who could speak to this. So
>> far governments have spoken a lot about it, but not civil society.
>>
>> The same goes for the WT5 ongoing work. The GAC has request 3 meetings in
>> ICANN60 to discuss the dot-Amazon case. WT5 seems worth at least 1 cross
>> community topic. This has also to be an informed debate, with participants
>> who have pioneered new gtlds and those who are interested in using them.
>> While this seems to me like an important session, I would think it could be
>> a challenge for the new PC NCSG representatives from NCUC, when they are
>> announced. They could call the session: "Why does GAC wants this so much?"
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Renata
>
>