[Comments-reviews-next-steps-05sep18] Short response to the Public Comment on the Reviews Next Steps paper dated 5 Sept.

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Noting firstly that I was a respondent to the original Public Comment on
this matter, I am pleased to provide this brief follow up to the subsequent
paper that seeks to "... confirm whether the responses received to date are
broadly representative of the multistakeholder community views, and to
harmonize divergence of opinions expressed by the responders. "

Secondly as previously noted in my earlier submission I have a direct
interest in ATRT3 and therefore the short term options proposed, as I am
one of the ALAC nominees already proposed to serve in the Review Team (RT).

So my brief responses to some points and proposals raised in the paper are
as follows:-

   - I concur with and am available to comply with the proposed date for
   the commencement of the substantive work of the RT January 2019.
   - I recognise the bylaw limitation and requirements for a 12-month
   duration of the Review.
   - Following from this, I would also then note that I am supportive of
   the proposed next steps and timeline as proposed in the paper.
   - Importantly I most certainly agree with the proposal in the paper that
   ATRT3 consider "... a discussion on how to streamline Specific Reviews to
   make them more effective and impactful. ..." although I would be personally
   pushing that it was more than "considered" by the RT, as I believe that it
   is important that as stated in the paper "... ATRT3 discussions, guidance
   and potentially recommendations would [I would prefer should] inform next
   steps."
   - If in the development of its own Scope ATRT3 agrees that the
   streamlining of Specific Reviews is to be included, then I also note that
   the proposed next steps and timeline in the paper would be useful for ATRT
   to discuss and consider.
   - The development of "...a shared understanding of the purpose of
   Organizational Reviews and their expected outcomes - within the ICANN
   community, Board and ICANN organization." as proposed in the paper as well
   as the aim to "...Identify potential options to accomplish the agreed upon
   purpose and expectations, with an eye toward improved efficiency and
   effectiveness."  has my support and I trust will, within the timeline
   proposed, become a key objective of the OEC.
   - I also note that the proposed process for the development of Operating
   Standards for Specific Reviews is well underway with community webinars
   already held and a public session planned for ICANN 63.

Finally with regards to Organisational Reviews and the existing timelines
for the cycling thereof, as I believe I have previously stated I would
propose that no new Organisational Reviews be conducted that have not
already begun, so the next cycle starting from the GNSO, should be
postponed until the review and any improvements to the "...shared
understanding of... ... ... " has been fully established.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide input.


*Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ...  *(CLO)

about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
[image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
  <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-reviews-next-steps-05sep18/attachments/20181005/1c569b71/attachment.html>