[CCWG-ACCT] FYI - Public Comment on AoC and Organizational Reviews

Mon Jun 29 15:46:46 UTC 2015

I don't read Mathieu's suggestion as "stopping" or "avoiding" AoC Reviews.
Rather, I think it is a matter of sorting out all that is in front of us as
a community, as an organization and as stakeholders.

There are at least two issues at play here:

1. *Potential "Reviewmageddon"*:  An avalanche of reviews in 2015-2016.
Factoring in AoC reviews, ATRT3 reviews, New gTLD Program reviews and the
by-laws based organizational reviews, we have a review calendar that may
constitute cruel and unusual punishment.  This increases the risk of
volunteer burnout, staff burnout, inattention to issues, suboptimal work
product, and increased breakdowns outside the Reviewmageddon in a community
already taxed by IANA/Accountability (and don't forget Work Stream 2!).  It
might be fun to put all that on a calendar and see how it looks -- more fun
than to try to work through it.  Something needs to be done to relieve this
situation.  Merely pushing the organizational reviews back does not relieve
that much of the pressure.

2. *Interplay between Accountability Work and AoC Reviews*:  The AoC
reviews will be reviewing a moving target, as the work of the CWG and CCWG
changes ICANN.  The AoC itself may disappear (subsumed in large part into
the bylaws) before the AoC reviews are completed.  New bylaws, processes
and structures will make it difficult to review ICANN in midstream -- are
these reviews of ICANN before, during or after IANA/Accountability changes
-- or all 3?  Of course, this would need to be worked out with NTIA, not
declared unilaterally (but I don't think anyone was suggesting that).  In
any event, we are best placed to consider the interplay between our work
and the AoC reviews.

On top of that, I sense and share Mathieu's concern that increased focus on
a multiplicity of reviews will drain participants and support from the
CCWG-Accountability.  While this may seem parochial, it is a well-founded
concern, and a chair, Mathieu's job description includes worrying about the
CCWG even when the focus of others is elsewhere.  I'm sure Mathieu is not
being monomaniacal, but it is his job (along with his co-Chairs) to warn us
that this is not "business as usual" and that the times call for ample
emphasis on and prioritizing of the work of the CCWG-Accountability.

These are valid concerns.  I would support a comment along the lines
Mathieu proposes.

Greg

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org> wrote:

>  Folks,
>
> The challenge here is that there are 7 reviews scheduled for next year.
> The community simply doesn’t have the bandwidth to do them all well. I
> think I agree with Avri that we don’t suspend the notion of review because
> of our work but we DO need to think about volunteer burnout.
>
>
>
> Two thoughts on the consequences. First, I find it frustrating that we
> think of reviews as impetus for implementation. That’s a total waste. We
> need to figure out some other mechanism to maintain momentum that isn’t a
> full blown review. Some kind of IAG or something would be better. The whole
> point of a review is to see if the changes had the desired outcome, not to
> simply restate the need for the changes. That’s like hammering a nail with
> a bus instead of a hammer. Can’t we find a more precise mechanism for
> implementation monitoring and pressure?
>
>
>
> Second, in my mind, accountability is less about timing than about
> critical path. In other words, I can see pushing off reviews of the new
> gTLD program as long as we push off the start of a new round. Given the
> supply driven nature of this marketplace, the world can afford a delay and
> we can get it right instead of rushing.
>
>
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Carlos
> Raul Gutierrez
> *Sent:* Monday, June 29, 2015 10:13 AM
> *To:* Mathieu Weill
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FYI - Public Comment on AoC and Organizational
> Reviews
>
>
>
> Dear Mathieu!
>
>
>
> What do you mean by stall? Stoping them? I couldn't agree less. There are
> still recommendations of ATRT2 that have not been implemented yet. Stopping
> the AoC would be a very negative message if we are looking for a permanent
> culture of accountability inside the Corporation.
>
>
>   Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
> skype carlos.raulg
> +506 8837 7176  (New  Phone number!!!!)
> ________
> Apartado 1571-1000
> COSTA RICA
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> wrote:
>
>  Dear Colleagues,
>
> A quick way to contribute to this call for comment would be to to submit a
> CCWG comment saying : stall the AoC reviews until approval of the new
> Bylaws which will be related to these reviews.
>
> Same for organizational reviews to avoid potential conflicting priorities
> with the SO/AC accountability discussion.
>
> Icann could, as a consequence, allocate more resources to supporting our
> work ;-)
>
> I am conscious this is very last minute, and don't want to rrush any
> decision. Unless there is clear support or other views getting traction
> within our group, we will most certainly abstain.
>
> best
> Mathieu
>
>
>
> Le 24/06/2015 19:02, Alice Jansen a écrit :
>
>   Dear all,
>
>
>
> For your information ---
>
>
>
> A session on AoC and Organizational Reviews: Supporting ICANN
> Accountability
> <http://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-aoc-org-reviews> took
> place this morning at ICANN53. This session covered Reviews defined by the
> Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) and Organizational Reviews, mandated by
> ICANN's Bylaws. Topics included: proposed schedule for upcoming reviews,
> proposed process and operational improvements to enhance efficiency and
> effectiveness of reviews, implementation status of recommendations from the
> Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2), the Security,
> Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review (SSR) and the "WHOIS Policy"
> Review (WHOIS).
>
>
>
> Please note that community feedback is currently being sought on a
> proposed schedule and process, including operational improvements, for
> Reviews mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC Reviews) and the
> ICANN Bylaws (Organizational Reviews). The request for the community is
> based on both appreciating the community's workload and the timing of
> several Reviews in FY2016. The public comment on Proposed Schedule and
> Process/Operational Improvements for AoC and Organizational Reviews
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-aoc-org-reviews-process-2015-05-15-en> will
> close on 2 July. Comments can be submitted to
> comments-proposed-aoc-org-reviews-process-15may15 at icann.org
>
>
>
> If you have any questions about this public comment proceeding, please
> contact Larisa Gurnick at l <larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
> arisa.gurnick at icann.org <larisa.gurnick at icann.org>.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>  --
>
> *****************************
>
> Mathieu WEILL
>
> AFNIC - directeur général
>
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
>
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
>
> *****************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150629/8b0781cb/attachment.html>