[AT-Review] FW: Thoughts on WG#3 Direction

[Brian Cute]

From: wadelman at godaddy.com [mailto:wadelman at godaddy.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 4:56 PM
To: Louie Lee; Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Cc: James Bladel; Fiona Alexander; A&T Review Team; guo
Subject: [AT-Review] Thoughts on WG#3 Direction

 

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. 

 

I can see why WG#3 is off track, 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.

 

Perhaps the outline below is over-simplified and leaves too many issues/topics on the table, but I see no choice at this juncture in the timeline.  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). 





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> 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.

 

2.	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.

 

3.	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.

 

 

 

-------- 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/20100906/26762785/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00037.txt
Url: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100906/26762785/attachment-0001.txt