[atrt2] Draft Report - version 1 for review
Avri Doria
avri at ella.com
Wed Oct 9 20:38:30 UTC 2013
Hi,
It is not specific selection criteria I am arguing for. I apologize if anything I wrote gave that impression.
It is the ways they operate that I think need to be subject to accountability and transparency. They can be as in a box of their own making as they like, as long as the construction of the box is transparent and the rules by which they function are transparent and are open to public review and comment. I tend to think that most of what they discuss should also be transparent, and subject to the same notions of default transparency, but that is not the topic of this conversation.
So pick the right people by whatever criteria makes sense for the job at hand - all ACs do. But let us know how it is done and let us comment on that. Let us know what the processes are and let us comment on them when they change. Let us know how we can provide input and comment on those means. Let us know what we can know about what happens in this select group.
I can accept it is a select group of wizards talking all sorts of talk we others may never understand. I personally don't accept that they get to do it in secret according to rules they make up without any comment from the rest of the community.
As for criticizing without closure that is a right we all have when we lose a discussion. But in terms of ATRT2, this is a last minute discussion that is probably making those working on getting the doc out stressed. In terms of the issue itself, I beleive I made my point, I beleive you understood it. From the silence I beleive I am alone in my objection to your change request. That seems to be rough consensus of sorts - and in the face of rough consensus, I have no choice but to withdraw.
I am probably among the closest to holding absolutist notions on transparency. I come from the GNSO where other than perhaps ALAC, we have the most transparent AC/SO in the community. And I come from the NCSG where I beleive we have the most transparent SG in the GNSO. I think all SO/AC should do all they can to approach the same degree of maximal transparency, and I find [GAC and] SSAC exceptionalism disturbing.
But that isn't one of the issues we are tackling in this draft or even in this rev of the ATRT - So I am not going to try and force the issue. But yes, I will focus special personal scrutiny on the SSAC from this point on. During the meeting we had with them, it was quite a revelation to watch the group dynamics and see that the AC was not as I had always assumed it to be from outside the block box. I am grateful that the ATRT2 meeting with them afforded me this glimpse, and that our records include this glimpse for all who may be interested. With the SSAC and its contribution to the current massive confusion the community is going through on the safety of new gTLDs, I do think that in the future the transparency and accountability of the SSAC are going to be very important community topics.
avri
On 9 Oct 2013, at 15:35, Steve Crocker wrote:
> Not good enough. This is an important point and not one where it makes sense to throw up your hands and say you don't understand. That's code for "I disagree but I'm overruled" and it leaves you in a position to continue to criticize without closure.
>
> Let me suggest the essence here has two elements. First, there is an intentional structural difference between SOs and ACs. SOs represent constituencies and have formal power. Decisions, in the form of policy adoptions, by SOs have authority. The authority is not absolute because the Board can, in principle, refuse to accept their policies, but the bar is very high and not often or easily exercised.
>
> The ACs are, in principle, intended to provide advice. However, the second salient element here is the ACs are not a uniform group. There is more disparity among the ACs than there is among the SOs, even though there is quite a bit of disparity across the SOs. The GAC, in particular, feels it has a certain level of authority, and in that respect has some characteristics of an SO.
>
> SSAC is at the other end of the spectrum. No defined constituency and no authority. No predefined criteria for membership. They make an effort to have members from all parts of the world, to have some women to balance the usual all male club, to have people who have background or connection with registrars, registries, address registries, root operators, security researchers, etc., etc., but there aren't any formal rules.
>
> If you start with the presumption that an advisory committee must meet the same criteria as, say, the Board or even the SOs, then you're focusing on process and not results, and you're attempting to add cost and criticism without any indication that it's needed. In my view, the time to look at the process is after the results have become poor or there are substantial complaints about how people are treated. On the other hand, looking at their effectiveness and relevance is always appropriate.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ok, I guess I have to accept that SSAC, like GAC is special and is not subject to the same considerations as the rest of the SO/AC.
>>
>> Makes no sense to me. I came to grudgingly accept the special sensitivities of governments to being treated equally to other SO/AC. I guess this is just one more step in enumerating the groups that are somehow special and thus beyond accountability and transparency.
>>
>> But if this is the decision of the Board, what am i going to do? I will give up on this unless I see that someone else in this group sees the world as I do. I think this is a huge problem, but if I am alone, I will not go to war over it within the ATRT2.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 Oct 2013, at 14:21, Demi Getschko wrote:
>>
>>>> Let me suggest an unintended consequence of your perspective.
>>>> By focusing on whether the SSAC processes meet community standards,
>>>> you're implicitly adding weight to the "who" and "how" of SSAC's
>>>> output, and that implicitly undermines the "what."
>>>> The strength and utility of SSAC's work must, in my view, be
>>>> based on the quality of the advice they provide and not their
>>>> reputation or stature. If "SSAC said X" becomes the meme and
>>>> creates an assumption that therefore X must be done, it lays
>>>> the foundation for SSAC, like any other group, to act as if
>>>> they have authority instead of only credibility.
>>>> That's a very slippery slope, which I think is not the way to go.
>>>> Steve
>>>
>>> Good point raised by Steve. Ageed!
>>>
>>> demi
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2013 03:12 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
>>>> On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:47 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that their advice should be considered and think I have argued for that, which arguing that all AC should have their advice treated equally respectfully by the Board.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I would consider SSAC transparency and accountability to the community, at least in terms of process an important consideration. I know they talk about secret stuff and will need to invoke the cloak of secrecy more than most. But I see no reason that their processes should not be accountable to the community.
>>>> They don't actually talk about secret stuff, which I think is a limitation. I've been privy to information about the interior of ICANN that I would have loved to have SSAC look at, but the SSAC folks didn't seem interested in engaging nor in setting up procedures for adhering to the confidentiality requirements.
>>>>
>>>>> I guess I just don't see the implication of a community review as problematic. Though It may be problematic that this is only an implication.
>>>> Let me suggest an unintended consequence of your perspective. By focusing on whether the SSAC processes meet community standards, you're implicitly adding weight to the "who" and "how" of SSAC's output, and that implicitly undermines the "what." The strength and utility of SSAC's work must, in my view, be based on the quality of the advice they provide and not their reputation or stature. If "SSAC said X" becomes the meme and creates an assumption that therefore X must be done, it lays the foundation for SSAC, like any other group, to act as if they have authority instead of only credibility. That's a very slippery slope, which I think is not the way to go.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> avri
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9 Oct 2013, at 13:35, Steve Crocker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Avri,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking as founding chair of SSAC, there wasn't even a requirement for operating procedures for SSAC much less a requirement they be vetted, reviewed or approved by the Board or any other group. As part of my role as chair of SSAC, I initiated the creation of the operating procedures as a pragmatic way of capturing the tidbits of we actually operated. It was specifically not intended to be a set of rules that bound the group to anything. Rather, it was intended as a compendium to help the group remember what it did before. That said, I noticed that once we wrote things down, people tended to interpret the words as binding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking your point more broadly, the bylaws given almost no guidance on the structure of SSAC. I didn't study the words associated with the other advisory committees as closely, but I think the situation is similar. The only specific operational requirement is for the Board to approve the membership on SSAC. In the beginning, there weren't any limitations on terms, there was any criteria regarding membership, there weren't any mechanisms for removing someone except, implicitly, to ask the Board to take such an action. I adopted a practice of presenting to the Board nominations and I did so with sufficient documentation to make it clear we had selected people with strong backgrounds. The Board routinely accepted all of our nominations, and when it came time to replace me as chair, the Board chose to ask SSAC to make the choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SSAC now has three year terms for membership, renewable, and it has an internal process for selecting new members.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either within ATRT2 or through other community processes I can imagine attempting to provide guidance or impose structure on SSAC and/or other advisory committees. If so, I recommend approaching that question directly. Grabbing hold of the operating procedures may be helpful as part of such an effort, but I don't believe it's the right starting point or even the main issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To press this point a bit further, SSAC has begun to complain that its advice hasn't been followed. As a matter of form, I think that's out of scope, but I also agree and am actively implementing that when they deliver advice it needs to be acknowledged and accounted for. We have wording in our current ATRT2 report that addresses this, which is fine with me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9 Oct 2013, at 13:04, Steve Crocker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> page 12, There was no comment period or other mechanism for community input associated with the publication of the SSAC Operating Procedures
>>>>>>>> This wording inappropriately implies there should be a public comment period. The SSAC Operating Procedures is an internal document that captures the processes in effect. It is not a policy document. Publication is done for transparency and comments, if any, will likely be considered, but it was never intended nor would it be appropriate to suggest there is a need for community feedback or approval.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In general, I thought that all SO/AC Operating Procedures go through at least a vetting by the Board and that is preceded by a public comment. I certainly thought this was the case for GNSO Operating Principles. Not sure if this was the case for the ALAC change that just went through, but I thought it was. I don't understand why this would not be the case for SSAC as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or should we take this to mean that no SO/AC needs to go through public comment before changing it Operating procedures?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> atrt2 mailing list
>>>>>>> atrt2 at icann.org
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> atrt2 mailing list
>>>>>> atrt2 at icann.org
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> atrt2 mailing list
>>>>> atrt2 at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> atrt2 mailing list
>>>> atrt2 at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> atrt2 mailing list
>>> atrt2 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> atrt2 mailing list
>> atrt2 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>
> _______________________________________________
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>
More information about the atrt2
mailing list