- atrt2 - lists.icann.org

On the question of the Board requesting the GAC do things
by Avri Doria Sept. 23, 2013

Sept. 23, 2013

Hi, Was thinking about this issue. I wonder if the problem is the notion of request. Would the idea work better with recommending that the Board invite? E.g. if we have consensus on High Level meetings, which of course I think should be Multistakeholder, being a good thing, they perhaps the Board can indicate its willingness for ICANN to be embroiled in such activities by 'inviting' the GAC to organize such. avri

3 4

Re: [atrt2] Comment review
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 23, 2013

Sept. 23, 2013

Doing it after the draft goes out sounds fine to me. Alan At 22/09/2013 09:04 PM, Brian Cute wrote: >If there is a method to do a "group review" of comments that we can >use effectively, I am open to that. At the same time, the most >important task is to complete the drafting assignments so we can >issue the draft Report on time. It is absolutely important to >reflect Public Comment received, to date, in the draft Report. That >is achievable if the drafters go through the public comments and >select certain comments for citation as Alan noted. At this moment, >I suggest that a full team review of comments, if feasible, occur >after the draft Report goes out and before the Final Report is published. > >Brian > > >On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Avri Doria ><<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >Hi, > >I do not think we are in great disagreement on this point. > >I beleive that a considered statement from the group that we looked >at an issue and decided not to follow it up, as responding. I do >beleive we need to be intentional about it. I do not beleive that >every comment necessarily merits a recommendation, but it does >warrant consideration. > >And no, I don't know when we are going to do it either. At this >point I am still fretting over and working on, my massive load of homework. > >If it is any consolation I do not think there are many issue we did >not discuss to some extent. > >thanks > >avri > >On 22 Sep 2013, at 12:26, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > Avri, as you know, I am a strong supporter of the methodology > used in PDPs to ensure that all comments are addressed, and I have > no problem with doing a similar walk-through for our comments, > although I question exactly WHEN we are going to do that given the schedule. > > > > However, I must differ with one thing that you said. I appreciate > that you used the phrase "make sure we have not left any of the > community's comments unworked" instead of "each and every concern > has been dealt with in the report", but I still feel that the word > unworked is too strong. Any given ATRT is not oblidged to address > every community concern. It must pick and choose, and some will be > rejected for various reasons without any thorough research or > discussion. Our effective communal bandwidth leaves us no option. > So the purpose of any such walkthrough should be to ensure that on > issues we have decided to take up, we have considered the > perspective of the commenter, and for those we do not take up, we > need to be satisfied that it is either not a true problem in our > collective minds, or something that we have simply not had the time > or energy to address. > > > > Alan > > > > At 22/09/2013 09:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> After last weeks meeting, I decided to reread the comment > summary provided to the group by the staff. I am still in the process. > >> > >> On reading, it occurred to me that we have not done, one of the > activities that all recent GNSO WGs have done in processing > comments, they walk through all of the comments, one by one using > the summaries and make sure that each and every concern has been > dealt with in the report. We have responded to many by focusing > on issues and slicing and dicing the comment pool among the many > smaller team efforts. But this mean that there may be some that > fell through the cracks. > >> > >> I am not saying we should produce a comment-by-comment response > report, we already decided not to as a group, though that is a > decision I remain uncomfortable with. But we should at least do a > 'walk through' the document to make sure we have not left any of > the community's comments unworked. I think we will find in a walk > through that many of not most will indeed have been covered, and we > can just note in the walkthrough which recommendation covers the > issue. but if we find an issue we missed, we need to make sure we > have done the right thing with it. My previous email about the > recent perceived as unilateral Staff actions is one example where I > do not feel I could adequately answer the question: how have you > dealt with this comment? And in BA, I expect we will be asked > questions exactly like that. We will need to have answers. We > will need to do better than: "well, you know, what can I say." > >> > >> I should point out that this is something that is always done > via teleconference in PDP WGs, so I am not suggesting more face to > face meetings. > >> > >> I don't know how you all want to do this, but I beleive that if > we don't walk through the comments we got in the process of > finalizing our report as quickly as possible, we will have been > remiss in our responsibilities. I want to make sure that we are > not aiming at this self imposed end of year deadline in such a > hurry that we don't get the whole job done. > >> > >> avri > >> _______________________________________________ > >> atrt2 mailing list > >> <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>atrt2(a)icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > atrt2 mailing list > > <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>atrt2(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 > > > >_______________________________________________ >atrt2 mailing list ><mailto:atrt2@icann.org>atrt2(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 > > >_______________________________________________ >atrt2 mailing list >atrt2(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

1 0

Comment review
by Avri Doria Sept. 23, 2013

Sept. 23, 2013

Hi, After last weeks meeting, I decided to reread the comment summary provided to the group by the staff. I am still in the process. On reading, it occurred to me that we have not done, one of the activities that all recent GNSO WGs have done in processing comments, they walk through all of the comments, one by one using the summaries and make sure that each and every concern has been dealt with in the report. We have responded to many by focusing on issues and slicing and dicing the comment pool among the many smaller team efforts. But this mean that there may be some that fell through the cracks. I am not saying we should produce a comment-by-comment response report, we already decided not to as a group, though that is a decision I remain uncomfortable with. But we should at least do a 'walk through' the document to make sure we have not left any of the community's comments unworked. I think we will find in a walk through that many of not most will indeed have been covered, and we can just note in the walkthrough which recommendation covers the issue. but if we find an issue we missed, we need to make sure we have done the right thing with it. My previous email about the recent perceived as unilateral Staff actions is one example where I do not feel I could adequately answer the question: how have you dealt with this comment? And in BA, I expect we will be asked questions exactly like that. We will need to have answers. We will need to do better than: "well, you know, what can I say." I should point out that this is something that is always done via teleconference in PDP WGs, so I am not suggesting more face to face meetings. I don't know how you all want to do this, but I beleive that if we don't walk through the comments we got in the process of finalizing our report as quickly as possible, we will have been remiss in our responsibilities. I want to make sure that we are not aiming at this self imposed end of year deadline in such a hurry that we don't get the whole job done. avri

3 3

On the issue of a persistent archival presence in the review teams 32/33
by Avri Doria Sept. 22, 2013

Sept. 22, 2013

Hi, Since this suggestion for dealing with the AOC Review Team technical facilitator whose mandate is to co-ordinate the reviews, was not accepted by the group, I have two further suggestions for your consideration. - Budgeting for one contracted expert facilitator/researcher to be hired for each of the review teams, to report to those teams. This to be budgeted in addition to other expert external help that is budgeted. The role will include coordinating information from previous reviews and should work on an information base that can be added to by successive annual facilitators Rationale: We had many issues in the contest for the paltry outside consulting funds available to us. We were therefore forced to choose from several efforts. Some of these efforts would have been assisted by a full time researcher who could have processed these smaller research questions. In this case, since it is the information base that remains persistent and not the facilitator that feeds that information base, we avoid the CoI issue of using an ICANN employee for the function (in contradiction to using a ombudsman-type relationship which was defined as having a perception of organizational bias in our discussions - note: this perception of bias, is something that should be addressed in Rec 15) - As ICANN now has an Official Archivist, budget some part of the Archivist's efforts for review team consultation. Rationale: While this is a new effort in ICANN, as time goes on, this will be one of the best sources of ICANN Institutional memory, an essential ingredient to our efforts. Paired with the independent expert facilitator discussed above, this should help the ATRT gets it factual basis better established. Thanks avri (apologies for not taking the weekend off as I promised I would do)

1 0

ATRT and Board/Staff unilateralism
by Avri Doria Sept. 22, 2013

Sept. 22, 2013

Hi, I know it is late for this, but after our meeting it occurred to me that we have not dealt with the many comments we got on the apparently inappropriate unilateral actions that the Board & Sr. Staff has been taking with regard to the RA, RAA and other new gTLD issues. I think that before we put out our draft report we have to decide if we are going to deal with this issue. If yes, how. If no, why not. This definitely seems to be an accountability issue to me and seems like an issue we can expect to be questioned about. avri

1 0

Item 12 - Olivier's Proposed Language
by Alice Jansen Sept. 20, 2013

Sept. 20, 2013

Dear Review Team Members, Please find enclosed Olivier's proposed language: The Advice of ICANN advisory committees shall be duly taken into account. The ICANN Board will respond to advice from all advisory committees explaining its rationale for accepting or refusing their advice. This relates to item 12. Enclosed you will find a link to Avri's template: https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/Issue+12+Template Thanks, Best regards Alice ---- Alice Jansen Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Office: +32 289 474 03 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann Email: alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>

3 3

Re: [atrt2] Item 12 - Olivier's Proposed Language
by zhangxinsheng＠miit.gov.cn Sept. 20, 2013

Sept. 20, 2013

---------- Origin message ---------- >From："Alice Jansen" <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> >To："atrt2(a)icann.org" <atrt2(a)icann.org> >Subject：[atrt2] Item 12 - Olivier's Proposed Language >Date：2013-09-19 18:37:16 Dear Review Team Members, Please find enclosed Olivier's proposed language: The Advice of ICANN advisory committees shall be duly taken into account. The ICANN Board will respond to advice from all advisory committees explaining its rationale for accepting or refusing their advice. This relates to item 12. Enclosed you will find a link to Avri's template: https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/Issue+12+Template Thanks, Best regards Alice ---- Alice Jansen Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Office: +32 289 474 03

1 0

RESEND: Revised template for PDP recommendation
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 20, 2013

Sept. 20, 2013

>Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 23:39:08 -0400 >To: "ATRT2 (atrt2(a)icann.org)" <atrt2(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Revised template for PDP recommendation

2 2

Timeline for Draft Report
by Alice Jansen Sept. 20, 2013

Sept. 20, 2013

Dear Review Team Members, In light of your agreement reached this morning, please find attached the timeline for your Draft Report. This will be posted on the wiki. Thanks, Very best regards Alice

3 2

Language Services // Multilingualism Recommendations 19 & 21
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 20, 2013

Sept. 20, 2013

Dear all, following on this morning's discussion about Language Services, please be so kind to consider the following suggested text for recommendations, in addition to the recommendations which have already been suggested. -- begin text --- Whilst it is recognised that there has been a significant improvement in the Language Services Department, the Translation Services component should evolve to be able to sustain a significant increase in activity. This shift from a craft-based ad-hoc supply/demand to a continuous industrial pipeline of documents involves: * the ability to accurately predict the time to translate a document at any time around the year, based on the knowledge of historical periodic activity (past ICANN meeting cycles, peak periods, holidays etc.); * the ability to predict peaks of activity pro-actively and dynamically modulating capacity to supplement permanent staff using a pool of additional freelance translators on demand to smooth out peak delays; * the ability for clients (SO/ACs etc.) to automatically track the status of their translation request (use of a CRM system) * the ability to automatically compile metrics on document translation timeliness * the implementation of a feedback path from the community to improve Language Services with native speaker input * the implementation of best practice documentation to harmonize translation quality and accuracy between experienced permanent and new or freelance translators * benchmarking of procedures with similar international organisations, the most significant being the United Nations Language and Interpretation Services --- end text --- Kind regards, Olivier

2 1