<html>
<body>
Not really, the ATRT2 is disbanded and we are effectively out of the loop
unless something is explicitly referred to us. You could always add a
comment of your own explaining what you meant and I'm sure it will be
incorporated into the comment summaries (ie something like - As the
author of the sentence in the GNSO comments reading "Rather, there
needs to be a clear and well-supported progression for community
volunteers to gain the skills, knowledge and experience needed to broaden
the ranks of active PDP participants and leaders.", I wish to point
out that the term "well-supported" is mean to imply both
philosophically supported AND financially supported.)<br><br>
Without further elaboration, I have little confidence that the 2nd
meaning will be inferred. And as I am sure you understand, it is
critical.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 21/02/2014 05:16 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">by using vague and imprecise
language, i hope to add to my mystique. :-)<br><br>
sorry — you’re right. i really intended both meanings with that
word. can you and Avri carry that message for me?<br><br>
mikey<br><br>
<br>
On Feb 21, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Mikey, in your second paragraph,
you use the expression "well-supported". Do you mean supported
as in "rah, rah, we want it", or "well-funded". If
the latter, you should be more explicit.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 21/02/2014 10:33 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">hi again — this is a slightly
newer new version. i decided to break up the paragraph a little
bit, that’s all. here’s the way i did it <br><br>
The ATRT2 report documents how a very small group of dedicated volunteers
carry an extraordinary proportion of the working-group load and correctly
identifies this as a major concern. We note that simply increasing
the pool of people aware of and in some way engaged with ICANN should not
be viewed as the goal. Ultimately what is needed is a larger and
more diverse group of active and effective volunteer participants in PDP
working groups. <br><br>
Although outreach is an important part of the effort and crucial for
bringing new volunteers to ICANN, the path to this goal should not end at
simply recruiting a large diverse group of people. Rather, there
needs to be a clear and well-supported progression for community
volunteers to gain the skills, knowledge and experience needed to broaden
the ranks of active PDP participants and leaders. <br><br>
We support reversing the current trend of too little focus on the
recruiting, development and support of capable volunteer policymakers
while increasingly following the expedient path of hiring expert panels,
expanding staff and hand-picking “community representatives” through
opaque “selection committees.”<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
On Feb 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Mike O'Connor
<<a href="mailto:mike@haven2.com">mike@haven2.com</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">hi all, <br><br>
thanks for the comments. here’s a new version.<br><br>
<br>
The ATRT2 report documents how a very small group of dedicated volunteers
carry an extraordinary proportion of the working-group load and correctly
identifies this as a major concern. We note that simply increasing
the pool of people aware of and in some way engaged with ICANN should not
be viewed as the goal. Ultimately what is needed is a larger and
more diverse group of active and effective volunteer participants in PDP
working groups. Although outreach is an important part of the
effort and crucial for bringing new volunteers to ICANN, the path to this
goal should not end at simply recruiting a large diverse group of
people. Rather, there needs to be a clear and well-supported
progression for community volunteers to gain the skills, knowledge and
experience needed to broaden the ranks of active PDP participants and
leaders. We support reversing the current trend of too little focus
on the recruiting, development and support of capable volunteer
policymakers while increasingly following the expedient path of hiring
expert panels, expanding staff and hand-picking “community
representatives” through opaque “selection committees.”<br><br>
<br><br>
<ATRT2 - Draft Council Input (14 February 2014) MO2.doc> <br><br>
On Feb 21, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Thomas Rickert
<<a href="mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de">rickert@anwaelte.de</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">+1<br><br>
Thomas<br><br>
<br>
Am 21.02.2014 um 15:48 schrieb "James M. Bladel"
<<a href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com">jbladel@godaddy.com</a>>:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I also support Mikey’s edits,
but to Klaus’ point, I’m wondering if we can insert something emphasizing
that new participants be “volunteers”? We do not want
to encourage the trend of hiring outside experts, proliferating Staff,
and hand-picked participants chosen by an opaque “selection
committee.”<br><br>
J.<br><br>
<br>
From: Klaus Stoll
<<a href="mailto:kdrstoll@gmail.com">kdrstoll@gmail.com</a>><br>
Date: Friday, February 21, 2014 at 8:02 <br>
To: "Reed, Daniel A"
<<a href="mailto:dan-reed@uiowa.edu">dan-reed@uiowa.edu</a>>, Mike
O'Connor <<a href="mailto:mike@haven2.com">mike@haven2.com</a>>,
GNSO Council List
<<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
><br>
Subject: Re: [council] Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team
(ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations<br><br>
Fine with me as long as we don't start breading more
"experts".<br><br>
Klaus<br><br>
On 2/21/2014 2:46 PM, Reed, Daniel A wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I think this is fine.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b><a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a> [
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mike
O'Connor<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 21, 2014 7:04 AM<br>
<b>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [council] Second Accountability and Transparency
Review Team (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations<br>
<br>
hi all, <br>
<br>
i agree Maria. i had a go at adding another paragraph to our
response to Rec #10.3 and have attached the revised draft. but to
save you time, here’s the language i inserted <br>
<br><br>
"The ATRT2 report documents how a very small group of dedicated
volunteers carry an extraordinary proportion of the working-group load
and correctly identifies this as a major concern. We note that
simply increasing the pool of people aware of and in some way engaged
with ICANN should not be viewed as the goal. Ultimately what is
needed is a larger and more diverse group of active and effective
participants in PDP working groups. Although outreach is an
important part of the effort and crucial for bringing newcomers to ICANN,
the path to this goal should not end at simply recruiting a large diverse
group of people. Rather, there needs to be a clear and
well-supported progression for newcomers to gain the skills, knowledge
and experience needed to broaden the ranks of active PDP participants and
leaders.”<br><br>
happy to consider revisions.<br>
mikey<br>
<br>
On Feb 21, 2014, at 3:56 AM, Maria Farrell
<<a href="mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com">maria.farrell@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Hi Jonathan,
<dd>I'm happy to support this, and thank you for drafting it. There's one
small typo, track changes version attached. It's in para 1, page 3.
<dd>I'd have liked if we tackled head-on the issue of the narrowness of
some PDP WGs' participation, which the ATRT2 report provided some pretty
convincing numbers on. But as I haven't gone to the trouble of actually
drafting anything on it, I can't complain.
<dd>All the best, Maria
<dd>
<dd>On 21 February 2014 09:15, Avri Doria
<<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Hi,
<dd>As a member of the ATRT2, I do not believe it my job to comment on
our report.
<dd>I think the GNSO response is fine as far as it goes and I am pleased
that at least something is being submitted - though I must admit I am
less than enthused about responses that essentially say "we are
already doing that".<br><br>
<dd>I might have wished for it to be more supportive of other aspects of
the report, but the response is what it is.<br><br>
<dd>avri<br>
<dd>On 21-Feb-14 09:43, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
<dl>
<dd>*_PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 8 HOURS_*
<dd>*From:*Jonathan Robinson [
<a href="mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com</a>]
<dd>*Sent:* 20 February 2014 09:38
<dd>*To:*
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
<dd>*Subject:* RE: Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team
(ATRT
<dd>2) Final Report & Recommendations
<dd>All,
<dd>The deadline for submission of public comment on the ends
approximately
<dd>36 hours from now.
<dd>I am OK to submit a letter in substantially the same for as that
<dd>distributed to you on 14 Feb (see below) and re-attached to this
letter.
<dd>BUT
<dd>I need your support to do so. Accordingly, even if you simply
provide
<dd>support without any comment on the content, that will be helpful.
<dd>*_PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 24 HOURS_*
<dd>Thank-you.
<dd>Jonathan
<dd>*From:*Jonathan Robinson [
<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info" eudora="autourl">
mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info</a>]
<dd>*Sent:* 14 February 2014 17:21
<dd>*To:*
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a> <
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:council@gnso.icann.org</a>>
<dd>*Subject:* Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT
2)
<dd>Final Report & Recommendations
<dd>*Importance:* High <br>
<dd>All,
<dd>If you are not already, please be aware of the following:<br><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-09jan14-en.htm">
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-09jan14-en.htm</a>
<dd>The opportunity to provide comments _ends one week from today 23h59
UTC
<dd>on 21 Feb 2014_. <br>
<dd>The ATRT2 interacted with many in the community during the course of
its
<dd>work, including directly with the GNSO Council which was certainly
<dd>appreciated. We now have an opportunity to comment on the final
report.
<dd>If we do intend to comment, my opinion is that we should at least
submit
<dd>an indication of intent, if not the primary comment, in the initial
<dd>comment period and not wait for the reply period.
<dd>Given the tight time frame, I have taken the unusual step of drafting
a
<dd>council response for your consideration. The ATRT2 deals with
some
<dd>critical areas of GNSO work and function and so it seems to me that
we
<dd>should respond to the call for comments, specifically in so far as
the
<dd>report deals with GNSO Policy and directly related areas.
<dd>I am aware that some of you were on the ATRT2 and others actively
worked
<dd>on Council interaction with the ATRT2. Therefore, you may well
have
<dd>strong views on the subject matter.
<dd>I look forward to your input and any suggestions.
<dd>Thanks,
<dd>Jonathan<br><br>
</dl>
</dl>
<dd>
<dd><ATRT2 - Draft Council Input (14 February 2014).doc><br><br>
</dl> <br><br>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB:
<a href="http://www.haven2.com/">www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE: OConnorStP
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)<br>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br><br>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB:
<a href="http://www.haven2.com/">www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE: OConnorStP
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) </blockquote><br><br>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB:
<a href="http://www.haven2.com/">www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE: OConnorStP
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
</blockquote></blockquote><br><br>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB:
<a href="http://www.haven2.com">www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE: OConnorStP
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) </blockquote></body>
</html>