<div dir="ltr">Hi all, hi Chris:<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 12 July 2015 at 15:54, Chris Disspain <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-family:'Verdana';font-size:13px;color:rgb(102,102,102)">Hi Jordan,<div><div><br></div><div>On ATRT, please see <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atrt2-recommendation-implementation-02apr15-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atrt2-recommendation-implementation-02apr15-en.pdf</a> and let me know the 'strange cases' to which you refer. </div><div><br></div></div></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Probably the implementation timetable. The report was submitted in December 2013. It is July 2015. There seem to be ticks in the boxes marking complete for roughly half the components in that (sixty-six) page PDF. Other elements continued (tho this update is April, and it's now July), and some aren't due for well over another year. Is that the kind of pace that we should expect?</div><div><br></div><div>Also: sixty-six pages is not the kind of summary that is a useful dashboard look at what is happening. Is part of the new dashboard approach going to summarise this information more briefly, more meaningfully?</div><div><br></div><div>Another question if you know - is there a similar from ATRT1?<br><br></div><div>Avri sometimes mentions things not implemented from ATRT reviews, maybe she can add.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-family:'Verdana';font-size:13px;color:rgb(102,102,102)"><div><div></div><div>On Jonathan’s list, the challenge is to demonstrate a) they are true and b) they are widely held community concerns rather than concerns of some in the community. </div><div><br></div><div>Take:</div><span class=""><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><i>Accepted the GC advice to protect the corporation instead of the public interest. </i></div></blockquote><br></div></span><div>Really? What does that mean? And when we‘re clear what it means could we then demonstrate community consensus that whatever it means is a problem?</div><div><br></div><div>There may well be examples of ‘Board’ action that would have had community consensus to overturn. But a cavalier approach to claiming such really is detrimental to the process we are trying to bring to a consensus based closure. </div><div><br></div></div></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Given the CCWG has people with a range of different sets of information, experience and length of service in the ICANN community to hand, part of the work in building consensus is getting the information on the table.</div><div><br></div><div>You challenged Jonathan to pose some examples; he did so; as far as I can find, this is the first time you've responded. I didn't quite know what to make of your silence, but now I do at least in respect of one of his points :-)</div><div><br></div><div>It leads to a more important question tho:</div><div><br></div><div>How can we have a sophisticated, evidence based discussion about the specific examples of failures in ICANN's accountability, the breadth of view as to whether they are failures or not, in a way that helps the CCWG do its work?</div><div><br></div><div>Do you / do participants generally think that would be an appropriate thing to spend some time on in WS2?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>cheers</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div></div>
</div></div>