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

["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<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<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.)