[CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Apr 28 14:39:45 UTC 2016
We definitely do need an integrated picture, but
at the first level, I think that should be a staff function.
Perhaps one can target the review, but I see a
real danger of diverting resources (people, time
and energy) from the other efforts, with the
possibility of even stalling or delaying them.
With regard to the Board directing a RT on what
they must focus on, I have no problem with
suggestions, but more than that I see as the
Board restricting the freedom of the RT. The AoC
did that by being very prescriptive and the
wording in the proposes Bylaws gives a RT (and
particularly the ATRT) a lot of latitude to
decide on what the important issues are at that specific point in time.
Alan
At 28/04/2016 10:18 AM, Steve Crocker wrote:
>Again speaking for myself without benefit of
>consultation and coordination internally, but
>with the benefit having watched all of this evolve, I think:
>
> * We do indeed need to follow the rules,
> which means we do need to start the next review as soon as possible.
> * We also need to assemble an integrated
> picture of the multiple processes so everyone
> can see whoâs doing what and how the various
> processes are related to each other.
> * Although we need to start the review
> process right away, we do have some latitude
> with respect to its scope. Bruce Tonkin has
> suggested for future reviews, presumably all of
> them, not just the directory services review,
> that we move toward asking a more specific
> questions to provide focus and to limit the
> amount of time and energy required to conduct these reviews.
>
>I think this last point moves in the direction
>youâre looking for even though itâs not as
>âefficientâ as simply declaring the review unnecessary in total.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>>On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Andrew Sullivan
>><<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>>
>>On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 09:55:06AM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:
>>>Speaking for myself, without benefit of
>>>coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN
>>>Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a
>>>PDP is not a substitute for a review.
>>
>>Ok (and I find I agree with your argument about the starting point of
>>RT vs. PDP).
>>
>>I believe quite strongly that we must follow the proposal closely, and
>>with the above conclusion it seems likely that an RT is going to be
>>needed for RDS as soon as the new bylaws come into effect. Given the
>>ongoing PDP, that seems unfortunate, but it might just be a
>>consequence that we have to accept given the state we're in (and the
>>dictates of the calendar). I do _not_ think it would be ok to vary
>>too much from what we think the report says. If we can't plausibly
>>come up with a way in which a PDP can substitute for an RT, it's far
>>from obvious to me that we can do anything here.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>A
>>
>>--
>>Andrew Sullivan
>><mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20160428/68c43d0b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list