[WP1] WP1 Work to Do - Now to July - Please Read

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Jul 6 04:56:36 UTC 2015


Greg,

I have been a review team member, and I have 
studied the outcomes of most (the exception was 
the SSR Review) to a fair degree. I can easily 
find fault with the particular selections of team 
members, and with the recommendations in a number 
of cases. But very little of that is a reflection 
on who the members were representing or who selected them.

Certainly the ATRT2 RT that I was on was guided 
to a VERY large degree by the input that we received from the wider community.

For the record, the ALAC representative to the 
WHOIS RT was an experienced IP Attorney. I have 
no knowledge of whether he was/is also a member of the IPC.

Alan

At 05/07/2015 11:52 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>Alan,
>
>I think you advance some interesting 
>concepts.  As for AoC outcomes, I have to admit 
>I am not enough of a student of the AoC reviews 
>to know whether the outcomes have been affected 
>by less than optimal membership.  I suppose 
>those who have participated in them would have a 
>better idea.  As a general matter, I am wary of 
>any review that excludes entire organizations, 
>though it may be mitigated by working 
>methods.  I could try to ask an IPC member who 
>has been a member of an AoC review team, but it 
>is my understanding that there has never been an 
>IPC member on an AoC review team (though I would be happy to be corrected).
>
>Greg
>
>On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>I have concerns with this, but in the direction 
>opposite to that of Greg. If every, or even some 
>AC/SOs availed themselves of the full complement 
>of allowed participants, these groups would grow 
>to be a size that I am not sure is warranted. I 
>would prefer to see a process by which we select 
>people with knowledge and understanding of the 
>issue to be discussed, AND a real willingness to do some hard work.
>
>I do not have the magic formula on how to do 
>this, but it is crucial to good review outcomes.
>
>In response to Greg, are there examples in the 
>AoC reviews that we have gone through where 
>there are clear situations where the outcomes 
>have suffered from the less than optimal 
>membership rules? In the ALAC, we have not had 
>the "perfect" balance from all five regions that 
>we often desire, but I am far less sure that the 
>OUTCOMES have been impacted due to the internal 
>consultation that we do as well as the overall 
>AoC RT's desire to solicit input widely.
>
>Alan
>
>At 03/07/2015 11:06 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
>
>>Avri and I recommend this text  on creation of 
>>review teams for AoC reviews being brought into 
>>the bylaws.  We picked-up in the community 
>>voting weights that will be used for AC/SOs 
>>exercising their “œcommunity powers†here:
>>All reviews will be conducted by a volunteer 
>>community review team comprised of 
>>representatives of the relevant Advisory 
>>Committees, Supporting Organizations, and the chair of the ICANN Board.
>>Up to 5 volunteers are welcomed from each 
>>AC/SO, to accommodate representatives of 
>>individual stakeholder groups.  If a review 
>>team conducts a consensus call on its report 
>>and recommendations, voting will be equalized among the participating AC/SOs.
>>The group must be as diverse as possible.
>>
>>Thoughts on that?
>>
>>From: Jordan Carter
>>Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:29 PM
>>To: "<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org"
>>Subject: [WP1] WP1 Work to Do - Now to July - Please Read
>>
>>Dear all
>>
>>Thanks for the contributions on our work 
>>planning call for Work Party 1 today. Please 
>>read this email carefully and add your thoughts.
>>
>>A separate note later today or early tomorrow 
>>will outline the WP1 meetings we need to have between now and 14 July.
>>
>>
>>We have three pieces of work to do by the end 
>>of the month. They are listed below, and then 
>>some detail fleshed out in the rest of this 
>>email, along with the call for volunteers...
>>
>>Three things need to be done:
>>
>>1. Prepare draft content for our Second Public 
>>Comment report, for discussion at Paris & finalising by end month
>>
>>2. Start the bylaws-preparation process, using the AOC reviews as a test case
>>
>>3. Prepare responses to all the public comments from PC1
>>
>>
>>On 1: the chunks of work we need to do are to 
>>prepare updated content that takes account of:
>>
>>- the feedback received in PC1
>>- the discussions with the community and in our group at Buenos Aires
>>- further analysis and refinement we make as WP1
>>
>>This draft material should be done in time for 
>>the Paris meeting, and so has to respect the document freeze on 14 July.
>>
>>We need to do this for the following areas, and 
>>we need a Lead Volunteer for each area:
>>
>>Community Mechanism - balance of power / votes / influence
>>Community Mechanism - whether there is a 
>>Council, or just a vote counting mechanism
>>
>>Community Power - Budget/Strat Plan / Operating Plan
>>Community Power - Blocking ordinary bylaws changes
>>Community Power - Approving Fundamental Bylaws changes
>>Community Power - Removal of individual Directors
>>Community Power - Recall of the whole ICANN Board
>>
>>Affirmation of Commitments - inclusion of AOC reviews in bylaws
>>Affirmation of Commitments - other matters (what happens to AOC, etc)
>>
>>
>>Not on this list is the Model itself (empowered 
>>designators, empowered SO/AC) - my 
>>understanding is that the lawyers are being 
>>asked to develop material on this, and that it 
>>will be central to our meeting in Paris.
>>
>>
>>If there are areas of work omitted above, please raise them ASAP.
>>
>>
>>:: Call for Volunteers ::
>>
>>If you would like to volunteer to lead any 
>>particular piece of work for the above, please 
>>do so ASAP - by email to me, or to this email list.
>>
>>Ideally, there will be one volunteer for each 
>>of the lines above. I have some people who have 
>>agreed to be "voluntold" - Avri and Matt Shears 
>>are in this category. But for the start, free choice!
>>
>>The task will be to be lead writer on a tracked 
>>changes version of the PC1 content, showing 
>>what you propose to change for the Second report.
>>
>>The approach asked is to:
>>
>>a) analyse the public comments and the discussions in BA
>>b) propose draft text changes that take this into account
>>
>>The example Steve delBianco circulated earlier today is a way to do it.
>>
>>
>>Your drafting will lead to discussion of your 
>>proposed content in WP1. We will do as much as 
>>we can to improve the drafts and get consensus, 
>>but we will debate all the material through in Paris is my current knowledge.
>>
>>On item 2 - bylaws drafting - Steve has started 
>>this process with the AOC and we will discuss 
>>this content on our next WP1 call.
>>
>>On item 3 - public comments replies - I propose 
>>that people take some account of this as they 
>>do the drafting work, and be prepared to spend 
>>some time on completing this task (responses to 
>>the comments we got in PC1) *after* the Paris meeting.
>>
>>
>>I look forward to your thoughts as to any gaps 
>>in the proposed work, and to your volunteering excellence.
>>
>>
>>
>>cheers
>>Jordan
>>
>>--
>>Jordan Carter
>>
>>Chief Executive
>>InternetNZ
>>
>>04 495 2118 (office) | <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649>+64 21 442 649 (mob)
>><mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>Skype: jordancarter
>>
>>A better world through a better Internet
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WP1 mailing list
>><mailto:WP1 at icann.org>WP1 at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>_______________________________________________
>WP1 mailing list
><mailto:WP1 at icann.org>WP1 at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150706/dfd663d8/attachment.html>


More information about the WP1 mailing list