[AT-Review] Thoughts on WG#3 Direction

Thu Sep 2 21:48:26 UTC 2010

Hi Warren  I'm happy with this approach and YES it is a catch all as well as
a matter which has a high degree of both interest and concern for the ICANN
and wider community...  See inter-spaced <CLO>  a few points  bellow (above
and below your original Signature line)

Now  to the matter of creating the template documents for Saturday => I'm
going to have to ask Louie as Co-Chair to focus on this refinement by Warren
to be utilized into what needs to be done with the rest of you on the WG#3
team for the next 24-48 hrs I am somewhat involved in 'family matters' as I
received a message in the transit lounge at Singapore on the way home from
our meeting that my youngest son (24) had been  in a car accident that
happened  about the same time as we took off from Beijing, and so I must
excuse myself  from all but the 'just keeping up with things' part of the
work flow for a short while.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)

On 2 September 2010 06:55, <wadelman at godaddy.com> wrote:

> Cheryl/Louie
>
> I wanted to share some thoughts (below the signature) on what WG#3's task
> would look like if we hit the proverbial "reset button."  I started with the
> AoC 9.1 (c) through (e), and moved through the documents presented by both
> of you in Beijing. <CLO> I wish you had had time to do this before our
> meeting it would have been of great assistance as I do appreciate and like
> this specific direction.>
>
> I can see why WG#3 is off track, <CLO> I'd have used terms like too
> broadly focussed rather than off target as that implies there was more to
> focus on and hit  but I DO know EXACTLY what you mean ;-) >  IMO, because
> the other WGs have very specific targets (Board selection, Board appeals,
> GAC).  In other words, WG#3 appears to be a catch-all for ICANN interactions
> with its stakeholders. <CLO> exactly!>
>
> Perhaps the outline below is over-simplified <CLO>  it needed to be
> simplified and given the very limiting (limited) time constraints I see this
>  narrower focus as essential.> and leaves too many issues/topics on the
> table, but I see no choice at this juncture in the timeline. <CLO> Yep!>  Many
> of the topics WG#3 would like to explore simply cannot be covered if the
> ATRT expects to produce quality output by the deadline.  So, I would
> recommend WG#3 truncate its focus on the entire ICANN structure (SO/ACs) and
> focus on the Board & Staff. (SO/ACs have their own review process and GNSO
> is in midst of one presently). <CLO>  though I believe we need to
> reference mention them and their status in our part of the report so it is
> clear that this RT was aware of them and noting why we were limited in this
> case  how future RT's on A&T need to use the current
> 'improvements processes' as a baseline and to see if mechanisms proposed
> have been implemented and to what effect. particular cross reference here is
> do parts d0 & e) of AoC 9.1 and step 3 below...>
>
> Olivier/Erik-as WG#3 team members do you share these concerns on this WG?
>
> All input from the ATRT welcome.
>
> Warren
>
> Warren Adelman
> President & COO
> GoDaddy.com
> warren at godaddy.com
> twitter: http://twitter.com/asocialcontract
> http://www.godaddy.com
>
> =============================================================
>
>
>
> *AoC Baseline:*
>
> Sec 9.1
>
> (c) [Assess] and [improve] the processes by which ICANN receives public
> input, including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale
> thereof;
> (d) [Assess] the extent to which ICANN's decisions are embraced, supported,
> and accepted by the Internet community; and
> (e) [Assess] the policy development process to facilitate enhanced
> cross-community deliberations, and effective and timely policy development.
>
> *Team 3 Remit:*
>
> Team # 3: Community/Stakeholder engagement, including effectiveness and
> quality of ICANN support for the policy development process, the quality of
> PDP output and the extent to which the ICANN PDP develops consensus,
> including across stakeholder groups, the level and quality of public input
> into the ICANN process, and the extent to which such input is reflected in
> ICANN decision-making.
>
>
> *Which became:*
> http://icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/wg3-framework-30aug10-en.pdf
>
> Of the four ATRT Working Groups, this team has the broadest and least
> defined task.
>
> Recommend going back to the AoC Sec. 9.1 and breaking this in to three
> steps:
>
>
>    1. Review existing public input and participation mechanisms, as
>    described in the ICANN bylaws, and how these factor in to the PDP and Board
>    decisions. It is not necessary to recursively expand this to the public
>    input / participation mechanisms described in the bylaws of all the SO/ACs
>    (e.g. GNSO), but rather keep the focus on ICANN Board and Staff. <CLO>
>    but it *must* include the current work / progress of the Public
>    Participation Committee and I would also suggest implementation of any
>    recommendations from reviews of the AC's and SO's already accepted in
>    reports to the Board (which does tie also to 3. below. NOTE  this is stuff
>    we can ask for as update from staff responsible as a set of status report>
>
>
>
>    1. Review a sample of ICANN Board (non-PDP?) decisions over a given
>    period (post-JPA or post-AoC) and test their acceptance by the community.
>    Are there any that stand out (via comments / feedback in Brussels) that
>    were not "accepted, supported, embraced"?  Basically, invert the
>    hypotheses or this group will be chasing an endlessly moving target. <CLO>
>     Good More than Happy to do this>
>
>
>
>    1. WG3 has correctly identified that this is nearly identical to the
>    PPSC-PDP effort.  But that is limited to the GNSO.  Who is examining
>    the PDP for the other SO/ACs?  (specifically, the ccNSO).  To simplify,
>    recommend that WG3 review the PPSC-PDP and PPSC-WG efforts and produce a
>    "right track / wrong track" finding.  Wrong Track = any recommendations
>    to course correct. <CLO> as part of the ALAC input into that effort I
>    know those teams are in a position to also give some responses to any
>    specific questions we might wish to pose here as well as note the specifics
>    of the Draft guidelines (just coming back from 1st review) that has been
>    done for the GNSO Review Implementation effort have been very particularly
>    designed  with a view to becoming a set of ICANN WG standards and therefore
>    have also been adopted (even in their draft form) by the current Joint GNSO
>    - ALAC WG's and Cross Community WG's running at the moment so again we can
>    ask for feedback here.>
>
>
>
>
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AT-Review] ATRT WG-3 Framework Adaption
> From: Louie Lee <louienet at gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, August 30, 2010 4:33 pm
> To: A&T Review Team <at-review at icann.org>
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Alice Jansen wrote:
>
> > Following up on Cheryl's request, please find attached the WG3's
> discussion document for presentation.
>
> RT,
>
> Please find attached the ATRT WG-3 Framework Adaption using Larry's
> template.
>
> Louie
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> AT-Review mailing list
> AT-Review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100903/f5aa67e2/attachment.html 