We definitely do need an integrated picture, but at the first level, I think that should be a staff function. Perhaps one can target the review, but I see a real danger of diverting resources (people, time and energy) from the other efforts, with the possibility of even stalling or delaying them. With regard to the Board directing a RT on what they must focus on, I have no problem with suggestions, but more than that I see as the Board restricting the freedom of the RT. The AoC did that by being very prescriptive and the wording in the proposes Bylaws gives a RT (and particularly the ATRT) a lot of latitude to decide on what the important issues are at that specific point in time. Alan At 28/04/2016 10:18 AM, Steve Crocker wrote:
Again speaking for myself without benefit of consultation and coordination internally, but with the benefit having watched all of this evolve, I think:
* We do indeed need to follow the rules, which means we do need to start the next review as soon as possible. * We also need to assemble an integrated picture of the multiple processes so everyone can see whoâs doing what and how the various processes are related to each other. * Although we need to start the review process right away, we do have some latitude with respect to its scope. Bruce Tonkin has suggested for future reviews, presumably all of them, not just the directory services review, that we move toward asking a more specific questions to provide focus and to limit the amount of time and energy required to conduct these reviews.
I think this last point moves in the direction youâre looking for even though itâs not as âefficientâ as simply declaring the review unnecessary in total.
Steve
On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Andrew Sullivan <<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 09:55:06AM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:
Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review.
Ok (and I find I agree with your argument about the starting point of RT vs. PDP).
I believe quite strongly that we must follow the proposal closely, and with the above conclusion it seems likely that an RT is going to be needed for RDS as soon as the new bylaws come into effect. Given the ongoing PDP, that seems unfortunate, but it might just be a consequence that we have to accept given the state we're in (and the dictates of the calendar). I do _not_ think it would be ok to vary too much from what we think the report says. If we can't plausibly come up with a way in which a PDP can substitute for an RT, it's far from obvious to me that we can do anything here.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community