[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 âÅcommunity powersâ 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