Avris approach has my full support. First of all we have to follow the bylaws. The special circumstances in this phase, including the ongoing work of WS 2 - nobody knows indeed when all the issues under WS 2 will be settled - has to be taken into consideration to avoid duplication. But as Avri said, this does not exclude that the group will will have something to say to what has been done on implementation of ATRT 1 & 2.
w
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von avri doria
Gesendet: Di 07.02.2017 22:13
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: Re: [council] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder
Hi,
I was part of some of the earlier discussion on this but not recently.
My view:
- The ATRT scope is defined in the bylaw. A lot of discretion is left
up to those doing the review on what to focus on. We cannot change the
bylaws defined scope at this point.
- Makes sense to limit to mostly a review of what has been done on
implementation of ATRT2 recommendations, including those that were ATRT1
remediation. Recommendations for limiting the scope are reasonable.
These recommendations should be taken under advisement by ATRT3.
- Does not make sense to focus on work being done in WS2 as we should
avoid duplication. There could however be issues related to the way WS2
is being done, so called meta issues, that could be brought up.
- There has probably not been enough time for much of WS1 to be worth
evaluation, but there may be exceptions. So while a recommendation for
avoiding post WS1 issues is reasonable, there may be reason for taking
up some issue or other especially if that issue is a result of changes
made. Though for the most part, it will be too early for much review of
WS1 changes.
So good to make a joint recommendation among the ACSO, but should/can
not be binding on ATRT3.
avri
avri
On 07-Feb-17 15:39, Edward Morris wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> I'd be very interested in hearing the perspective on this of Avri. As
> the ATRT expert on the CCWG no one nows more about both groups than
> she. Although not necessarily dispositive, I would give great weight
> to her views here.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 8:01 PM
> *To*: [log in to unmask]
> *Subject*: Fwd: Re: [council] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for
> a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder
>
>
> We should discuss our views on this in the Friday call.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a
> Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder
> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 00:13:44 +0000
> From: Phil Corwin <[log in to unmask]>
> To: James M. Bladel <[log in to unmask]>, GNSO Council List
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> FYI, the BC supports the reduced scope of this upcoming review.
>
>
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172/Cell***
>
> * *
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>
>
>
> *From:*[log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel
> *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2017 10:57 PM
> *To:* GNSO Council List
> *Subject:* [council] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a
> Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder
>
>
>
> Councilors -
>
>
>
> Please see the message from CCWG Staff, below. Most of the SO-AC
> chairs (myself included) took this note as informational, and missed
> the call to action.
>
>
>
> In a nutshell, the CCWG co-chairs note that the upcoming ATRT3 review
> team will overlap significantly with the recently completed
> (Workstream 1) and ongoing work (Workstream 2) of CCWG-ACCT. Like the
> approach to WHOIS2, they are proposing a reduced scope for this next
> review to avoid collision/duplication of work.
>
>
>
> I'd welcome any comments or thoughts you might have on this, and we
> can add it as a discussion item for our draft agenda for our Council
> call in February.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> J.
> -------------
> James Bladel
>
>
>
> _____________________________
> From: Bernard Turcotte <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 14:41
> Subject: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the
> ATRT3 Review - reminder
>
>
> ??SO and AC Chairs,
>
>
>
> ?This is a reminder that the CCWG-Accountability has not received any
> replies to its December 2nd proposal (original message below)
> regarding the scope of the upcoming ATRT3 review which will be
> publishing its call for volunteers by the end of January.
>
>
>
> As stated in the proposal? there are a number of significant overlaps
> between the work of the CCWG-Accountability and a standard ATRT review
> which would cause an important duplication of work between these two
> processes.
>
>
>
> The CCWG-Accountability simply wishes to ensure that the SO's and AC's
> are aware that if there is no request from the SO's and AC's to modify
> the scope of the ATRT3 review prior to its launch that it will proceed
> as a standard review.
>
>
>
> ?The Co?-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability remain available to the
> SO's and AC's for further discussions or answer any questions.
>
>
>
> Bernard Turcotte
>
> ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability for
>
> The Co-Chairs of the ?
>
> CCWG-Accountability.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Mathieu Weill <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Dear SO & AC Chairs,
>
> The CCWG-Accountability (CCWG) at its face to face meeting at the
> ICANN 56 in Helsinki considered the implications of the collision of
> topics, and therefore efforts, between ATRT3 and Work Stream 2 (WS2)
> (please see Annex 1 for a detailed consideration of this issue).
>
> In its discussion of this issue the CCWG considered the following points:
>
> ˇ Collision of topics between WS2 and ATRT3 - There is
> potential for significant overlap between WS2 topics and the scope of
> ATRT3 as 6 of the 9 WS2 topics are accountability and transparency
> issues ATRT3 could also consider.
>
> ˇ Timing of the two activities - WS2 began in July 2016 with an
> objective of completing its work by the end of 2017. ATRT3, which is
> expected to take 12 months to complete, is currently scheduled to
> begin in January 2017 but could potentially be delayed until February
> 2018 under the new Bylaws (which require ATRT every 5 years versus the
> AoC requirement for every 3 years). It would seem inefficient, at
> best, to have both of these activities working on the same topics
> independently, while drawing on the same pool of community volunteers.
> At worst, ATRT3 and WS2 groups could issue recommendations that are
> conflicting or duplicative.
>
> ˇ Implementation of recommendations - The Bylaws for WS2 give
> CCWG recommendations greater weight when it comes to board
> consideration, relative to recommendations from an ATRT organized
> under the AoC.
>
> While in Helsinki, the CCWG concluded its preferred approach, as
> communicated in our 8-Aug-2016letter
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-et-al-to-icann-board-08aug16-en.pdf>
> to the Board of ICANN:
>
> Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the limited scope of assessing
> implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new
> recommendations for accountability and transparency. The fourth ATRT
> would convene before 2022 and would assess all accountability and
> transparency topics and make recommendations
>
> The ICANN Board replied
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-sanchez-et-al-24oct16-en.pdf>
> to the CCWG letter on 24-Oct-2016, saying,
>
> It is not up to the Board to dictate the scope of this important
> community review. While we share the concerns raised of avoiding
> duplication of resources, it is essential that the broader ICANN
> community have a voice in determining how the ATRT3 should be scoped
> in alignment with the Bylaws. The Board and the ICANN Organization
> stand ready to support the community's direction.
>
> Accordingly, the CCWG is now proposing to community leadership the
> following approach:
>
> . Requesting that the SO/AC leadership select (following the new
> Bylaws) a small group of review team members that have either
> participated in or closely tracked ATRT2.
>
> . Requesting the ICANN organization to do a "self-assessment"
> reporting on a) the extent to which each recommendation was followed
> and/or implemented; b) the effectiveness in addressing the issues
> identified by ATRT2; and c) the need for additional implementation.
>
> . Specifically request that the Review Team exclude the issues
> that are already covered by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 (see Annex 1).
>
> . Suggesting that the work be conducted & completed more quickly
> than normal, such as asking that the Final Report be issued within six
> months
>
> If the suggested approach above is agreeable to SO/AC community, the
> next steps would be:
>
> . SO/AC leadership to issue a public statement or a letter to
> ICANN CEO and Board Chair that explains why limited scope is
> appropriate and articulates that they have broad support of the ICANN
> community
>
> . Call for Volunteers to note limited scope & unique expertise sought
>
> . Reach out to previous ATRT Review Team members and encourage
> them to apply for the narrowly-scoped ATRT3 Review Team
>
> . Propose a Charter for the ATRT3 Review Team to adopt that
> tracks the limited Scope
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez & Mathieu Weill
>
> CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acct-Staff mailing list
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/acct-staff
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4749/13802 - Release Date: 01/20/17
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
