<html>
<body>
We definitely do need an integrated picture, but at the first level, I
think that should be a staff function. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 28/04/2016 10:18 AM, Steve Crocker wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Again speaking for myself
without benefit of consultation and coordination internally, but with the
benefit having watched all of this evolve, I think:<br><br>
<ul>
<li>We do indeed need to follow the rules, which means we do need to
start the next review as soon as possible.<br>
<li>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.<br>
<li>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.
</ul><br>
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.<br><br>
Steve<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM,
Andrew Sullivan
<<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 09:55:06AM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.</blockquote><br>
Ok (and I find I agree with your argument about the starting point
of<br>
RT vs. PDP).<br><br>
I believe quite strongly that we must follow the proposal closely,
and<br>
with the above conclusion it seems likely that an RT is going to be<br>
needed for RDS as soon as the new bylaws come into effect. Given
the<br>
ongoing PDP, that seems unfortunate, but it might just be a<br>
consequence that we have to accept given the state we're in (and the<br>
dictates of the calendar). I do _not_ think it would be ok to
vary<br>
too much from what we think the report says. If we can't
plausibly<br>
come up with a way in which a PDP can substitute for an RT, it's far<br>
from obvious to me that we can do anything here.<br><br>
Best regards,<br><br>
A<br><br>
-- <br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>
</blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>