[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue Feb 7 22:00:21 EET 2017
We should discuss our views on this in the Friday call.
Stephanie Perrin
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a
Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 00:13:44 +0000
From: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
To: James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List
<council at gnso.icann.org>
FYI, the BC supports the reduced scope of this upcoming review.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/Cell***
**
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*council-bounces at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel
*Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2017 10:57 PM
*To:* GNSO Council List
*Subject:* [council] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited
Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder
Councilors -
Please see the message from CCWG Staff, below. Most of the SO-AC chairs
(myself included) took this note as informational, and missed the call
to action.
In a nutshell, the CCWG co-chairs note that the upcoming ATRT3 review
team will overlap significantly with the recently completed (Workstream
1) and ongoing work (Workstream 2) of CCWG-ACCT. Like the approach to
WHOIS2, they are proposing a reduced scope for this next review to avoid
collision/duplication of work.
I'd welcome any comments or thoughts you might have on this, and we can
add it as a discussion item for our draft agenda for our Council call in
February.
Thank you,
J.
-------------
James Bladel
_____________________________
From: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com
<mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 14:41
Subject: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the
ATRT3 Review - reminder
SO and AC Chairs,
This is a reminder that the CCWG-Accountability has not received any
replies to its December 2nd proposal (original message below) regarding
the scope of the upcoming ATRT3 review which will be publishing its call
for volunteers by the end of January.
As stated in the proposal there are a number of significant overlaps
between the work of the CCWG-Accountability and a standard ATRT review
which would cause an important duplication of work between these two
processes.
The CCWG-Accountability simply wishes to ensure that the SO's and AC's
are aware that if there is no request from the SO's and AC's to modify
the scope of the ATRT3 review prior to its launch that it will proceed
as a standard review.
The Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability remain available to the SO's
and AC's for further discussions or answer any questions.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability for
The Co-Chairs of the
CCWG-Accountability.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear SO & AC Chairs,
The CCWG-Accountability (CCWG) at its face to face meeting at the ICANN
56 in Helsinki considered the implications of the collision of topics,
and therefore efforts, between ATRT3 and Work Stream 2 (WS2) (please see
Annex 1 for a detailed consideration of this issue).
In its discussion of this issue the CCWG considered the following points:
·Collision of topics between WS2 and ATRT3 - There is potential for
significant overlap between WS2 topics and the scope of ATRT3 as 6 of
the 9 WS2 topics are accountability and transparency issues ATRT3 could
also consider.
·Timing of the two activities - WS2 began in July 2016 with an objective
of completing its work by the end of 2017. ATRT3, which is expected to
take 12 months to complete, is currently scheduled to begin in January
2017 but could potentially be delayed until February 2018 under the new
Bylaws (which require ATRT every 5 years versus the AoC requirement for
every 3 years). It would seem inefficient, at best, to have both of
these activities working on the same topics independently, while drawing
on the same pool of community volunteers. At worst, ATRT3 and WS2 groups
could issue recommendations that are conflicting or duplicative.
·Implementation of recommendations – The Bylaws for WS2 give CCWG
recommendations greater weight when it comes to board consideration,
relative to recommendations from an ATRT organized under the AoC.
While in Helsinki, the CCWG concluded its preferred approach, as
communicated in our 8-Aug-2016letter
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-et-al-to-icann-board-08aug16-en.pdf>
to the Board of ICANN:
Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the limited scope of assessing
implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new
recommendations for accountability and transparency. The fourth ATRT
would convene before 2022 and would assess all accountability and
transparency topics and make recommendations
The ICANN Board replied
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-sanchez-et-al-24oct16-en.pdf>
to the CCWG letter on 24-Oct-2016, saying,
It is not up to the Board to dictate the scope of this important
community review. While we share the concerns raised of avoiding
duplication of resources, it is essential that the broader ICANN
community have a voice in determining how the ATRT3 should be scoped in
alignment with the Bylaws. The Board and the ICANN Organization stand
ready to support the community’s direction.
Accordingly, the CCWG is now proposing to community leadership the
following approach:
•Requesting that the SO/AC leadership select (following the new Bylaws)
a small group of review team members that have either participated in or
closely tracked ATRT2.
•Requesting the ICANN organization to do a "self-assessment" reporting
on a) the extent to which each recommendation was followed and/or
implemented; b) the effectiveness in addressing the issues identified by
ATRT2; and c) the need for additional implementation.
•Specifically request that the Review Team exclude the issues that are
already covered by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 (see Annex 1).
•Suggesting that the work be conducted & completed more quickly than
normal, such as asking that the Final Report be issued within six months
If the suggested approach above is agreeable to SO/AC community, the
next steps would be:
•SO/AC leadership to issue a public statement or a letter to ICANN CEO
and Board Chair that explains why limited scope is appropriate and
articulates that they have broad support of the ICANN community
•Call for Volunteers to note limited scope & unique expertise sought
•Reach out to previous ATRT Review Team members and encourage them to
apply for the narrowly-scoped ATRT3 Review Team
•Propose a Charter for the ATRT3 Review Team to adopt that tracks the
limited Scope
Best regards,
Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez & Mathieu Weill
CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs
_______________________________________________
Acct-Staff mailing list
Acct-Staff at icann.org <mailto:Acct-Staff at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/acct-staff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4749/13802 - Release Date: 01/20/17
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170207/a925169e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list