[AT-Review] Thoughts on WG#3 Direction

Mon Sep 6 10:38:33 UTC 2010

I'm sorry for not having moved forward on this matter.  But now that that I'm back in full work-mode, I can dedicate time to this effort.

Olivier & Erik, if you have concerns on this WG, it would be great if you can share them so we can realign as a whole group.

Louie

On Sep 2, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:

> 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:
>  
> 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>
>  
> 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>
>  
> 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/20100906/2374778a/attachment.html 