[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-staff_acct] Consensus Call for sending Rev 1.5 to the full meeting for a first reading.

[Barrack Otieno]

Hi Avri,

I approve

Regards

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks, Avri, fine with me.
>
>
> *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ...  *(CLO)
>
> about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
> [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
>   <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
>
>
> On 19 September 2017 at 22:08, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Attached is version 1.6 of the Staff Accountability report. It is being
>> submitted for a first reading in the full WS2 meeting.  This will be the
>> group's second attempt to do so.  We have, since the first failed
>> reading, discussed the issues that came out from that reading and have
>> made extensive changes to the recommendations and their wording.
>>
>> The report has received consensus from the subgroup in all aspects but
>> one. Due to the limited number of people participating in out last
>> meetings we felt that we could not resolve that issue without a wider
>> conversation.
>>
>> Currently recommendation 4a reads:
>>
>>     ICANN Organization should work with the community to:
>>
>>       a.Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the
>>         Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that
>>         clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted
>>         parties and the service level target for each service.
>>
>>
>> The recommendation in our previous attempt at a first reading in the
>> full group had been for a service level agreements (SLA). As there had
>> been strong reaction on SLAs because of their legal nature and the
>> difficulty involved in negotiating such SLAs, the recommendation was
>> changed to guidelines. In response, there was consensus in the subgroup,
>> though not unanimity, for recommending guidelines instead of agreements.
>>
>> During the subgroup consensus call, there was a request that we wait
>> until there had been time for more comment from the Contracted Parties
>> House of the GNSO, on whose behalf the original recommendation had been
>> made. It was argued that guidelines were an unreliable mechanism and
>> that it would be better to develop SLAs.
>>
>> Because of the tight schedule and the intermittent nature of sub-team
>> member attendance, it was recommended by others that we send the
>> subgroup consensus document as is on to the full meeting leaving the
>> issue of 4a open for discussion in the full meeting. An online consensus
>> call supported this recommendation.
>>
>> The document can be found in
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tI
>> aOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit?usp=sharing>
>> (pdf attached)
>>
>>
>> thank you
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


-- 
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254733206359
Skype: barrack.otieno
PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170920/7c7c5052/attachment.html>