September 2013 - atrt2 - lists.icann.org

[ATRT2] GAC related template
by Fiona Alexander Sept. 30, 2013

Sept. 30, 2013

Attached is the updated GAC related template for the discussion on Tuesday. It reflects the input and agreement from the meeting in Washington, including the further staff input provided. Note, it does not yet reflect the input Jorgen sent this morning as some of those comments would change the recommendations tentatively agreed in Washington. Given this, the group needs to discuss Jorgen's comments and recommended changes on the Tuesday call to collectively reach agreement on further changes, if any. Fiona ________________________________________ From: atrt2-bounces(a)icann.org [atrt2-bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Cute [bcute(a)pir.org] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:33 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick; Alice Jansen; Charla Shambley Cc: atrt2(a)icann.org Subject: [atrt2] Templates Larisa, Alice and Charla, Please post these templates to the wiki. Thank you. Regards, Brian

1 0

Templates
by Brian Cute Sept. 29, 2013

Sept. 29, 2013

Larisa, Alice and Charla, Please post these templates to the wiki. Thank you. Regards, Brian

3 2

Rec. 18, 19 and 22 plus rec. 21
by Lise Fuhr Sept. 29, 2013

Sept. 29, 2013

Dear ATRT2, Here are the language template and the consultation forecast template. I wish you all a nice Sunday from Berlin. Best, Lise

1 0

GAC Related Recommendations
by Jørgen C Abild Andersen Sept. 29, 2013

Sept. 29, 2013

Dear Larry, dear ATRT2 colleagues It was with regret that I could not participate in the meeting in Washington some 10 days ago. But I appreciate that you made good progress and that we are still on the right track. As we move towards the final drafting of templates that lead to recommendations there is one thing which I think we should all pay special attention to. That is - when drafting templates and recommendations - the importance of basing our considerations and proposals for recommendations on facts and not on "feelings". Brian (and also Larry) has rightly pointed at this many times and personally I agree. In a document of 27 August, 2013 Larry submitted recommendations related to GAC and to outreach in general. I think the document is a very good one and I have previously given my support to the document and the proposed recommendations and I still support the document in general. Over the last weeks, however, I have had the opportunity to read the document of 27 August again from the angle described above (proposals based on facts - not "feelings"). Also bearing in mind the reply of 17 May 2013 from the Danish Business Authority to the ATRT2 call for input (attached for your convenience) I have the following comments and proposals which I would appreciate be considered and taken into account when drafting the final documents to be submitted for consultation. First of all I am somewhat uneasy to assert on page 5 in the Hypothesis section that there is "concern about continued limited support and adequate resource commitments of governments to the GAC". I have carefully read the section on background research and I cannot find quotes or facts that directly question the support and resource commitments of governments. In fact, the quotes in the section including the Danish notes no. 14 and 16 to the document of 27 August target the need for ICANN to provide support and easy access to information to counter the barriers of esoteric debates and information overload. As such a prerequisite for further outreach to become successful is to make the ICANN policy process more accessible to all participants regardless of language and familiarity with the ICANN model. Accordingly I suggest to change to sentence in the hypothesis paragraph from "There is a perceived lack of transparency of GAC work methods as well as concern about continued limited support and adequate resource commitments of governments to the GAC" to "There is a perceived lack of transparency of GAC work methods as well as concern about the inherent barriers for participation in ICANN due to the complexity of the ICANN model and the immense level of information". As a consequence, we will need to change the Findings section item 2 that concludes "challenges continue with limited support and commitments of government to the GAC process, which is reflected in disparate levels of familiarity with DNS matters" as there are no facts to support this conclusion in the background research. In accordance with quotes from the community the item 2 can conclude that "challenges continue with large barriers for participation both within the GAC and to ICANN in general. Without more effective procedures in the GAC and easier access to information by ICANN as well as better explanation of the ICANN model it will be more than difficult to uphold a continuous and effective level of participation in the GAC" thus deleting "challenges continue with limited support and commitments of government to the GAC process, which is reflected in disparate levels of familiarity with DNS matters and disparate levels of preparation for the issues pending for GAC/ICANN meetings. A perceived level of unfamiliarity with DNS issues could lead to a lack of credibility for GAC Advice and other outputs". I believe recommendation 7) and 8) are still valid and in line with community input and background information. I have, however, become less comfortable about supporting recommendation 6 as we really do not have any facts suggesting the lack of a code of conduct is a problem today not to mention that the suggested code of conduct for GAC members may provide further obstacles for some countries to participate in the GAC (measures for adequate domestic resource commitments, routine consultation et al). This may become counterproductive in particular at a time where we really need to encourage countries to come to the table instead of introducing a not-based-on-facts new regime which by some countries may be perceived as an obstacle for participating. A possible replacement for recommendation 6 could be "The GAC should engage in discussion with ICANN to identify initiatives that can remove barriers for participation including language barriers, understanding of the ICANN model and access to relevant ICANN information for GAC members". And as we know that the GAC is already discussing working methods internally we can support this initiative by recommending that "the GAC should analyse how GAC procedures can be improved to ensure more efficient, transparent and inclusive decision-making processes". Other comments: Page 3: In the last paragraph before the headline " Summary of community input on implementation" "Denmark" should be replaced by "Norway". Page 5: In the Background research section it is stated that "Comments show that this lack of insight into GAC discussion and work methods can result in confusion for the stakeholders upon the receipt of GAC Advice and a diminished level of trust". Reading the quotes including the Danish note 9 I believe the lack of respect and diminished level of trust concerns all key stakeholders including the Board, the GAC and the GNSO. I would be more comfortable if we deleted "and a diminished level of trust". Finally I want to thank Larisa and ICANN Staff for providing us with Staff Clarification and Response regarding the GAC-related Recommendations. I think we all highly appreciate the iniatives taken by ICANN in that respect and I read them to be very well in line with the thinking of ATRT2. One important thing in that context is that ICANN establishes clear goals to be achieved in order to measure whether the intended impact of all the efforts is actually achieved. This point has already been made a number of times by ATRT2 members but certainly deserves to be repeated. Furthermore I urge ICANN to focus on very firm coordination of the activities in the different lines of action (follow-up on ATRT recommendations, Strategy Panels, GAC Working Methods Working Group, BGRI etc.) to avoid duplication of work and in general to avoid confusion among stakeholders about what is really going on in this important area. Best regards Jørgen

1 0

ATRT2 - Doodle Poll for WHOIS Web Site Demo
by Charla Shambley Sept. 27, 2013

Sept. 27, 2013

Please click on the following link to participate in the doodle poll so that we can determine a convenient time to hold the WHOIS web site demo early next week. The demo will last no longer than half an hour. This meeting is only required for Michael Yakushev, Alan Greenberg, Steve Allison and Chris Gift. All other recipients on this email are optional attendees. http://doodle.com/942euyfvdc8yi593 I will send out a calendar invitation as soon as the required participants have provided their availability. Thank you for participating and enjoy your weekend! Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Executive Assistant ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-578-8921

1 0

Staff Clarification and Response - Inventory Items #17-21 (GAC-related Recommendations)
by Larisa B. Gurnick Sept. 27, 2013

Sept. 27, 2013

Dear Larry and Jørgen, Staff has been reviewing the proposed observations and recommendations considered by the ATRT 2 and would like to offer some comments. As you are the ATRT 2 members assigned to complete the analysis and the documentation on various items, staff would appreciate your consideration of the information included as "Staff Comments" in the attached document. Staff appreciates the significant work effort that you and the Review Team have committed to making ongoing improvements in ICANN's accountability and transparency. Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995

1 1

Re: [atrt2] merging issues
by Brian Cute Sept. 27, 2013

Sept. 27, 2013

Carlos, Thanks for organizing these thoughts and the drafting around these issues. So that we are all perfectly clear about who is drafting what, this is my understanding. If it is not consistent with your understanding, please let me know right away. I am using the numbering system from the Template grid on the ATRT2 wiki. #1,2 - Skills building - Avri #3 - NomComm - Brian #5 - Board compensation - Brian #6 - Policy v. Implementation (Executive Function) - Brian #7 - Redaction (publishing Board docs) - Brian #12-16 - Review Mechanisms - Carlos/Avri (Brian and Paul editing support, not primary drafting) #28, 29 - PDP - Avri/Alan #35, 36 - Transparency Audit/Whistleblower - Avri Best, Brian On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutierrez < carlosraul.gutierrez(a)sutel.go.cr> wrote: > > > > Carlos Raúl Gutierrez > -- > crg(a)isoc-cr.org > Skype carlos.raulg > +506 6060 7176 > > >

2 1

Staff response and clarification - Inventory Item #26: Ensure senior staffing arrangements are appropriately multilingual
by Larisa B. Gurnick Sept. 26, 2013

Sept. 26, 2013

Lise and Fiona, Staff has been reviewing the proposed observations and recommendations considered by the ATRT 2 and would like to offer several clarifications. As you are the ATRT 2 members assigned to complete the analysis and the documentation on various items, staff would appreciate your consideration of the information summarized here. Regarding ATRT 1 Recommendation 22 The level of multi-lingual staff is very good at the moment but is there a written policy about the need for language skills for senior staff? And if hiring people without language skills the employee will be taken language courses? Staff response: While ICANN does not have a written policy for hiring senior staff with multilingual skills, there are a number of well-established practices and standard operating procedures to address this topic. As ATRT 2 noted, ICANN has been successful in ensuring that senior staff possess multilingual skills by following these practices, and we anticipate that the level of multilingual knowledge will deepen as ICANN continues to implement its global strategy. ICANN will consider other appropriate documentation of the importance of multilingual skills for senior staff on a go forward basis. Practices and standard operating procedures: 1. All position descriptions (and job postings) for positions where multilingual skills are appropriate have been written to include multilingual skills as desired, preferred, or required, as applicable. 2. Where appropriate, internal interview survey form asks each interviewer to comment on the multilingual skills of each interviewed candidate - this is a standard operating procedure. 3. The geographic expansion in the locations of ICANN offices is resulting in expansion of multilingual skills, by design. ICANN provides several resources to employees for expanding their language skills. These resources include access to world-class language training tools, such as Rosetta Stone and busuu.com online language training. Additionally, ICANN provides tuition for local instruction classes as needed; such instruction has been provided for Spanish, Dutch, French among other languages, for staff in hub office cities. Staff appreciates the significant work effort that you and the Review Team have committed to making ongoing improvements in ICANN's accountability and transparency. Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995

1 0

ICC Findings/Draft Report - 26 Sept @ 17:00-18:00 UTC
by Charla Shambley Sept. 25, 2013

Sept. 25, 2013

Dear Review Team Members, A call has been scheduled with ICC to discuss their findings and draft report. If you are available at the scheduled time, please feel free to join the call this Thursday as follows: Thursday, 26 September 2013 17:00-18:00 UTC Please check your local time at: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ATRT2+Call+with+IC… Link to Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/ CONFERENCE ID: 27318 Dial-in numbers: are listed below according to your country of residence. Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list available at: http://adigo.com/icann/ Should you require a dial-out, please provide us with your phone number. Australia 1 800 009 820 1 800 036 775 Sydney – T - +61 290 372 962 Melbourne – T – +61 399 996 500 Brisbane – T – +61 731 777 546 Brazil L - 0800 891 1597 M - 0800 891 1598 T - +55 613 717 2040 New - 0800 892 3882 Canada 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 China North - 10 800 712 1212 South - 10 800 120 1212 All - 400 120 0691 Costa Rica 0 800 0 121 513 Denmark L - 8088 7326 M - 8088 6280 T - +45 89 880 470 France 0800 913 680 0800 90 25 56 T -+33 975 181 806 Kenya No dial-in number available. Kindly provide your number and we will dial out to you. Russia New - 8 10 8002 2085011 T - 7 499 5042850 United Kingdom 0800 056 9431 0800 032 6646 T - +44 207 099 0867 United States 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Executive Assistant ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-578-8921

1 0

Call with ICC
by Brian Cute Sept. 24, 2013

Sept. 24, 2013

Larisa, Mark and I caught up yesterday regarding ICC's deliverables. We agreed to a touch base call tomorrow. I think we can dispense with the scheduled call today. Thanks. Brian

1 0