ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

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

Not really, the ATRT2 is disbanded and we are effectively out of the loop unless something is explicitly referred to us. You could always add a comment of your own explaining what you meant and I'm sure it will be incorporated into the comment summaries (ie something like - As the author of the sentence in the GNSO comments reading "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.", I wish to point out that the term "well-supported" is mean to imply both philosophically supported AND financially supported.)
Without further elaboration, I have little confidence that the 2nd meaning will be inferred. And as I am sure you understand, it is critical. 

Alan

At 21/02/2014 05:16 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

by using vague and imprecise language, i hope to add to my mystique.  :-)
sorry ? you?re right. i really intended both meanings with that word. can you and Avri carry that message for me? 

mikey
On Feb 21, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>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 <<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>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 <<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 


+1

Thomas
Am 21.02.2014 um 15:48 schrieb "James M. Bladel" <<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>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 <<mailto:kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, February 21, 2014 at 8:02
To: "Reed, Daniel A" <<mailto:dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx>dan-reed@uiowa.e du>, Mike O'Connor <<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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:<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor 
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 7:04 AM
To: <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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 <<mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>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 <<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>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:* <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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:* <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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>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: <http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: <http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: <http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: <http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>