[CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities

[Alan Greenberg]

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 who’s 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 
>you’re looking for even though it’s not as 
>“efficient” 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>