[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [ALAC] HIT Topics for Marrakech
justine.chew at gmail.com
Sat May 11 01:55:49 UTC 2019
In answer to your question "*But doesn't this do double duty with the
policy commenting on: https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg
<https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg>*", my answer is this public comment
you pointed out focuses on streamlining organisational reviews. While
related, it does not seem to me to place emphasis on implementation.
The session I'm referring to is the one proposed by Theresa Swinehart at
https://icann.wufoo.com/reports/icann65-proposed-topics (no. 9): which
*HIT: Enhance effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and their
Status/Current Notes: HIT Under Review
Background//Importance/Timelines: In Kobe, the CCT review leadership
requested that the ICANN org organize a session in Marrakesh to discuss
ways in which the specific review teams, the Board and the ICANN org can
work more productively toward useful outcomes from Specific Reviews. Given
the importance of specific reviews as an accountability measure, and with
all specific reviews currently in various stages of work and
implementation, ICANN65 offers a timely opportunity for a productive
discussion, leading to concrete improvements. Specific Reviews are
conducted by community-led teams, and under the new Bylaws, the ICANN
community has new powers and responsibilities related to this work.
Session Goals and Expected Outcomes: *Broad community discussion on three
topics of importance: 1) how to improve costing and implementation of
review recommendations, 2) how to develop a process to prioritize and
establish sustainable cadence of implementations across various reviews,
and **3) the establishment of a protocol for handling specific review
recommendations.* It is intended that a robust and broadly representative
discussion *will inform next steps and the specific review work currently
underway (RDS-WHOIS2, SSR2 and ATRT3*) *as well as the implementation of
CCT recommendations*. *Community input will also guide implementation of
WS2, inform the overall effort of streamlining specific reviews. Community
input will inform potential changes to the operating standards for specific
So in fact, Theresa's proposed session could inform/help shape
At-Large/ALAC's policy positions for the public comment you pointed to,
which closes after ICANN65.
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 05:05, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> Some good questions to get stuck into with that PC
> - Do you/your organization agree with the proposed list of issues that
> should form the focus of the streamlining process? If not, with which do
> you disagree and what would you like to add?
> - Do you/your organization agree with the proposed underlying
> principles that should guide the solutions? If not, with which do you
> disagree and what would you like to add?
> - Do you/your organization agree with the community role in the
> streamlining process? If not, what would you propose?
> - Do you/your organization agree with the proposed high-level
> timeline? If not, what would you propose?
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:09 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>> Dear Justine,
>> On 09/05/2019 14:27, Justine Chew wrote:
>> I would say NOT #3 Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and
>> implementation because UNLESS the goal for topic has changed substantially
>> (and if someone can confirm this or otherwise) this topic has been
>> suggested by ICANN Org in response to the request made by Jonathan Zuck at
>> ICANN 64 in respect of the Board's reaction to the CCTRT Final Report
>> recommendations. I think we should back Jonathan up on this, and it's an
>> important CC topic.
>> But doesn't this do double duty with the policy commenting on:
>> https://community.icann.org/x/LImGBg ?
>> Kindest regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
More information about the registration-issues-wg