Re: [council] Schedule/Timing of AoC Reviews

["Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to suggest at least on practical point to address the 
issues of coordination between Reviews and with other policy efforts, 
and hope to make this discussion move forward in Helsinki, or even 
earlier in the Council
1. AoC Reviews have moved now to the By-laws. In my view this requires 
regular and consistent “information” of all the Reviews over time, 
for the benefit of all the individual Reviews, as well as other policy 
efforts
2. The Reviews Information should be regular, succinct and independent 
of specific efforts in the Corporation to comply with previous review 
recommendations. In other words a comprehensive yearly report on the 
status of the 4 Review streams (work in progress, follow -up of previous 
recommendations, challenges) should be made available to the community.
3. The report should be produced by a SOs/ACs secretariat of sorts, that 
also takes the timing-coordinating-budgeting responsibility of the the 
review efforts in a way, so that Review Teams can start their work in a 
more efficient manner
Happy to volunteer for further work on this issue, as I have personally 
seen the large startup-up and coordination problems in two review 
efforts already.
Have a nice Sunday

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 7 May 2016, at 8:38, James M. Bladel wrote:

> Council Colleagues -
>
> As discussed previously, I raised the topic of scheduled Reviews (as 
> required under the Affirmation of Commitments) with the chairs of 
> other SOs and ACs.  The discussion was sparse, but a few other groups 
> shared the concern that two of these (ATRT3 and WHOIS2) could 
> potentially collide with existing CCWGs and PDPs (specifically, RDS 
> and implementation of Work Stream 1 of CCWG-ACCT).
> However, there was no consensus as to what actions, if any, should be 
> taken at this time.  In the absence of unified and formal guidance 
> from the Community, the reviews will proceed as scheduled.  Any 
> proposals to change the timing or scope would require engagement with 
> the Board, and also likely NTIA.
> If I recall, there will be a few opportunities to discuss this at the 
> Policy Forum in Helsinki.  My recommendation is that we (GNSO, SGs, 
> Cs, SO/ACs, etc.) continue to raise any remaining concerns in those 
> sessions.
> Thank you,
>
> J.