[info] MSSI Support for SSR2-RT

[Akinremi Peter Taiwo]

Hi Arsene,

  The proposal is very good to me if it can only and only be implemented
and adhere to.

Regards.
Peter

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>
wrote:

> All,
>
> The last piece of update with regards to the ongoing consultations
> with regards to the SSR2-RT. A letter from the SO/AC Chairs asking for
> more MSSI support for the SSR2-RT work.
>
> I personally believe this is a good move from SO/AC Chairs and we hope
> to see this RT resume its work soon as this seems to be the will of
> the ICANN community.
>
> Regards,
> Arsene
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Date: Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:48 PM
> Subject: [soac-chairs] MSSI Support for SSR2-RT
> To: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>
> Cc: Board SSR2 Caucus <board-caucus-ssr2 at icann.org>, SOAC Chairs <
> soac-chairs at icann.org>, Khaled Koubaa <Khaled.koubaa at board.icann.org>
>
>
> Dear Theresa,
>
> This letter is being sent on behalf of the SO/AC Chairs.
>
> Based on discussions with the SSR2 Review Team (RT) at ICANN60, a
> confidential survey conducted by the SO/AC Chairs of RT members, and
> one-on-one discussions between RT members and their respective SO/AC
> leaders, our understanding is that there are two areas where the RT
> believes that they could benefit from enhanced MSSI support.
>
> 1.       *Better records of RT meetings, both face-to-face and
> teleconferences*. Currently MSSI support provides a record of decisions
> made by the RT and Action Items (for both RT members and MSSI staff). In
> addition to these current efforts, the Review Team requests that high-level
> notes of discussions be captured during the meetings, similar to the notes
> that are taken by staff for many CCWG meeting discussions as well as for
> GNSO PDPs, and comparable to the records of Board discussions that often
> form a part of Board minutes. The SO/AC Chairs consider that this request
> is reasonable.
>
> 2.       *Improved response to RT requests*. RT members have expressed a
> concern that ICANN (via MSSI staff) has been slow in providing answers to
> questions and further information. Clearly this is a subjective issue, both
> in regard to how quickly responses should be provided and to what extent
> requests are reasonable and able to be addressed within the expected
> response time. Nevertheless, as it has been identified as a concern of RT
> members and is potentially hindering the RT’s effectiveness, we believe
> that this should be addressed. The SO/AC Chairs suggest the following:
>
> a)      For all requests for information (which are already logged as MSSI
> Action Items), MSSI to the extent practical should estimate expected
> response time and track response time.
>
> b)      When a response cannot meet expectations, the RT should be notified
> with an amended expectation and explanation for the extended time needed.
>
> c)       If the RT or RT leadership believes that the response or response
> time in any given instance is unsatisfactory, this should be raised with
> MSSI staff.
>
> d)      If the question cannot be responded to or requires clarification,
> or if ICANN org for some other reasons does not feel the request is
> appropriate, MSSI must flag this as a “critical issue” to be addressed.
> Such “critical issues” may also be raised by RT leadership, RT members,
> MSSI or other ICANN staff in the event of a disagreement on resources or
> information availability. To the extent possible, a rationale should be
> clearly expressed to enable the RT to understand the situation.
>
> e)      Any such “critical issue” should be explicitly noted as an Action
> Item. A small group consisting of the Board Liaison to the RT, one member
> of MSSI staff and one from the RT leadership (or one that the RT leadership
> appoints) will work to either ensure that adequate resources are made
> available or RT expectations are reset at a more appropriate level or
> whatever other action is appropriate to allow the issue be resolved.
> Immediately when a “critical issue” is raised, the OEC and SO/AC Chairs
> should be notified, and both OEC and SO/AC Chairs should, if at least one
> of the three persons in the subgroup so requests, help by having a
> representative participate in the discussions.
>
> f)       the process above should be considered for inclusion in the
> Operating Standards.
>
> We would appreciate your thoughts on these proposals.
>
>
> Sent on behalf of:
>
> Alan Greenberg, Chair, ALAC
> Paul Wilson, Chair, ASO
> Katrina Sataki, Chair, ccNSO
> Manal Ismail, Chair, GAC
> Heather Forrest, Chair, GNSO
> Tripti Sinha, Co-Chair, RSSAC
> Brad Verd, Co-Chair, RSSAC
> Rod Rasmussen, Chair, SSAC
>



-- 
*Akinremi Peter Taiwo*
[ West Africa Coordinator ]
African Civil Society on Information Society (*ACSIS*)
*Website: *www.acsis-scasi.org

*Chief E*xecutive Consultant.
[ Compsoftnet Enterprise ]
www.compsoftnet.com.ng
Nigeria

*T*echnical Consultant
[ RetailPoint ]
Lagos
Website: www.retailpos.com.ng

*Phone:* +2347-0638-30177, +2348-1874-76292
*twitter:* @compsoftnet
*Skype:* akinremi.peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180216/18502f26/attachment.htm>