[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-staff_acct] Consensus Call for sending Rev 1.5 to the full meeting for a first reading.

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Thanks, Avri, fine with me.


*Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ...  *(CLO)

about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
[image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
  <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>


On 19 September 2017 at 22:08, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Attached is version 1.6 of the Staff Accountability report. It is being
> submitted for a first reading in the full WS2 meeting.  This will be the
> group's second attempt to do so.  We have, since the first failed
> reading, discussed the issues that came out from that reading and have
> made extensive changes to the recommendations and their wording.
>
> The report has received consensus from the subgroup in all aspects but
> one. Due to the limited number of people participating in out last
> meetings we felt that we could not resolve that issue without a wider
> conversation.
>
> Currently recommendation 4a reads:
>
>     ICANN Organization should work with the community to:
>
>       a.Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the
>         Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that
>         clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted
>         parties and the service level target for each service.
>
>
> The recommendation in our previous attempt at a first reading in the
> full group had been for a service level agreements (SLA). As there had
> been strong reaction on SLAs because of their legal nature and the
> difficulty involved in negotiating such SLAs, the recommendation was
> changed to guidelines. In response, there was consensus in the subgroup,
> though not unanimity, for recommending guidelines instead of agreements.
>
> During the subgroup consensus call, there was a request that we wait
> until there had been time for more comment from the Contracted Parties
> House of the GNSO, on whose behalf the original recommendation had been
> made. It was argued that guidelines were an unreliable mechanism and
> that it would be better to develop SLAs.
>
> Because of the tight schedule and the intermittent nature of sub-team
> member attendance, it was recommended by others that we send the
> subgroup consensus document as is on to the full meeting leaving the
> issue of 4a open for discussion in the full meeting. An online consensus
> call supported this recommendation.
>
> The document can be found in
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_
> rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit?usp=sharing>
> (pdf attached)
>
>
> thank you
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170920/90a14eb6/attachment.html>