ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations
  • From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:54:04 +0100
  • Cc: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>, "Reed, Daniel A" <dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <CF2CC242.4AE6C%jbladel@godaddy.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <CF2CC242.4AE6C%jbladel@godaddy.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

+1

Thomas


Am 21.02.2014 um 15:48 schrieb "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> I also support Mikey’s edits, but to Klaus’ point, I’m wondering if we can 
> insert something emphasizing that new participants be “volunteers”?    We do 
> not want to encourage the trend of hiring outside experts, proliferating 
> Staff, and hand-picked participants chosen by an opaque “selection committee.”
> 
> J.
> 
> 
> From: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Friday, February 21, 2014 at 8:02 
> To: "Reed, Daniel A" <dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx>, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, 
> GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team 
> (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations
> 
> Fine with me as long as we don't start breading more "experts".
> 
> Klaus
> 
> On 2/21/2014 2:46 PM, Reed, Daniel A wrote:
>> I think this is fine.
>>  
>> Dan
>>  
>> From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
>> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 7:04 AM
>> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [council] Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team 
>> (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations
>>  
>> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* 20 February 2014 09:38
>> *To:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> *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@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* 14 February 2014 17:21
>> *To:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> *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.)
>>  
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>