<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations
Hi,
On 21-Feb-14 23:16, Mike O'Connor wrote:
by using vague and imprecise language, i hope to add to my mystique. :-)
How could it get much greater?
sorry — you’re right. i really intended both meanings with that word.
can you and Avri carry that message for me?
It is not for us to carry anymore.
the comments are for the Board.
ATRT2 became history on 1 Jan 2014.
sorry
avri
mikey
On Feb 21, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Mikey, in your second paragraph, you use the expression
"well-supported". Do you mean supported as in "rah, rah, we want it",
or "well-funded". If the latter, you should be more explicit.
Alan
At 21/02/2014 10:33 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi again — this is a slightly newer new version. i decided to break
up the paragraph a little bit, that’s all. here’s the way i did it
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 9:23 AM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>> 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.”
<ATRT2 - Draft Council Input (14 February 2014) MO2.doc>
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>
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Mike O'Connor
*Sent:* Friday, February 21, 2014 7:04 AM
*To:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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]
*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]
*Sent:* 14 February 2014 17:21
*To:* 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.)
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
>>>
|