<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations
- From: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:41:29 +0100
- Cc: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Reed, Daniel A" <dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=shwvmj5IkzYxPbdRAlF7uJjatuElNR74184PM3aKNlg=; b=V2JTEDabZVOs4JAs0fuP065pZBdpCZ053cH/Oy6N/LCLVCWS/6WK/QT5aJso4rfjYG bLerPmmDOrxX/7KEdb1dnMpztc0kB/wEvc99B+EwQHVNfr+ykVkSqjS4qyRUxSC/JHMg 0OhqcYQ/RsZk0WyjRUx816VMsqYznQdh05k5HKVGv+k3QSjifcLJPzQb5gXScHgSU54o 0tXQ7Wr7WpfJy6HzDk9hAQtS2UOtt09c0bwUkGCOI5Th6KWMFmhk5VmIUFLUVPS9v9pC vSOJZIrEB3qRfsgklqYi1vs9aPFnk5PYdwS/5dtd0/aIdpmC12/my1tcRtrvbqROuFOa hugA==
- In-reply-to: <72352D1C-03C5-4D18-B3B3-C5DB808A7A44@haven2.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <CF2CC242.4AE6C%jbladel@godaddy.com> <C6E6E146-B1B6-425F-8939-9978E1C689D9@anwaelte.de> <72352D1C-03C5-4D18-B3B3-C5DB808A7A44@haven2.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
Sounds good to me, Thanks Mikey
Klaus
On 2/21/2014 4:23 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
thanks for the comments. here’s a new version.
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 volunteer
participants in PDP working groups. Although outreach is an important
part of the effort and crucial for bringing new volunteers 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 community volunteers to gain the
skills, knowledge and experience needed to broaden the ranks of active
PDP participants and leaders.We support reversing the current trend of
too little focus on the recruiting, development and support of capable
volunteer policymakers while increasingly following the expedient path
of hiring expert panels, expanding staff and hand-picking “community
representatives” through opaque “selection committees.”
On Feb 21, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
+1
Thomas
Am 21.02.2014 um 15:48 schrieb "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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 <mailto:kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, February 21, 2014 at 8:02
To: "Reed, Daniel A" <dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx>>, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]
*Sent:* 20 February 2014 09:38
*To:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]
*Sent:* 14 February 2014 17:21
*To:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto: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
<http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter,
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com
<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook,
LinkedIn, etc.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|