[council] Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations

[Maria Farrell]

I think this is great - I support Mikey's draft.

Maria


On 21 February 2014 13:04, Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com> wrote:

> hi all,
>
> i agree Maria.  i had a go at adding another paragraph to our response to
> Rec #10.3 and have attached the revised draft.  but to save you time,
> here's the language i inserted
>
> "The ATRT2 report documents how a very small group of dedicated volunteers
> carry an extraordinary proportion of the working-group load and correctly
> identifies this as a major concern.  We note that simply increasing the
> pool of people aware of and in some way engaged with ICANN should not be
> viewed as the goal.  Ultimately what is needed is a larger and more diverse
> group of active and effective participants in PDP working groups.  Although
> outreach is an important part of the effort and crucial for bringing
> newcomers to ICANN, the path to this goal should not end at simply
> recruiting a large diverse group of people.  Rather, there needs to be a
> clear and well-supported progression for newcomers to gain the skills,
> knowledge and experience needed to broaden the ranks of active PDP
> participants and leaders."
>
> happy to consider revisions.
> mikey
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2014, at 3:56 AM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> I'm happy to support this, and thank you for drafting it. There's one
> small typo, track changes version attached. It's in para 1, page 3.
>
> I'd have liked if we tackled head-on the issue of the narrowness of some
> PDP WGs' participation, which the ATRT2 report provided some pretty
> convincing numbers on. But as I haven't gone to the trouble of actually
> drafting anything on it, I can't complain.
>
> All the best, Maria
>
>
> On 21 February 2014 09:15, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As a member of the ATRT2, I do not believe it my job to comment on our
>> report.
>>
>> I think the GNSO response is fine as far as it goes and I am pleased that
>> at least something is being submitted - though I must admit I am less than
>> enthused about responses that essentially say "we are already doing that".
>>
>> I might have wished for it to be more supportive of other aspects of the
>> report, but the response is what it is.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 21-Feb-14 09:43, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> *_PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 8 HOURS_*
>>>
>>> *From:*Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com]
>>> *Sent:* 20 February 2014 09:38
>>> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org
>>> *Subject:* RE: Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT
>>>
>>> 2) Final Report & Recommendations
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> The deadline for submission of public comment on the ends approximately
>>> 36 hours from now.
>>>
>>> I am OK to submit a letter in substantially the same for as that
>>> distributed to you on 14 Feb (see below) and re-attached to this letter.
>>>
>>> BUT
>>>
>>> I need your support to do so.  Accordingly, even if you simply provide
>>> support without any comment on the content, that will be helpful.
>>>
>>> *_PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 24 HOURS_*
>>>
>>> Thank-you.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> *From:*Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
>>> *Sent:* 14 February 2014 17:21
>>> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> *Subject:* Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2)
>>> Final Report & Recommendations
>>> *Importance:* High
>>>
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> If you are not already, please be aware of the following:
>>>
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-
>>> recommendations-09jan14-en.htm
>>>
>>> The opportunity to provide comments _ends one week from today 23h59 UTC
>>> on 21 Feb 2014_.
>>>
>>>
>>> The ATRT2 interacted with many in the community during the course of its
>>> work, including directly with the GNSO Council which was certainly
>>> appreciated.  We now have an opportunity to comment on the final report.
>>>
>>> If we do intend to comment, my opinion is that we should at least submit
>>> an indication of intent, if not the primary comment, in the initial
>>> comment period and not wait for the reply period.
>>>
>>> Given the tight time frame, I have taken the unusual step of drafting a
>>> council response for your consideration.  The ATRT2 deals with some
>>> critical areas of GNSO work and function and so it seems to me that we
>>> should respond to the call for comments, specifically in so far as the
>>> report deals with GNSO Policy and directly related areas.
>>>
>>> I am aware that some of you were on the ATRT2 and others actively worked
>>> on Council interaction with the ATRT2.  Therefore, you may well have
>>> strong views on the subject matter.
>>>
>>> I look forward to your input and any suggestions.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
> <ATRT2 - Draft Council Input (14 February 2014).doc>
>
>
>
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140221/9259985b/attachment.html>