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

Fri Feb 21 13:35:10 UTC 2014

Thanks Maria, Mikey & Avri.

Any other comment and input welcome.

Jonathan

From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com] 
Sent: 21 February 2014 13:12
To: Mike O'Connor
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team
(ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations

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/20140221/9b3c03cd/attachment.html>