Egalitarian listing of ATRT2 members?
During the organization call Friday I was using a print out of the members. It had separate sections for the Volunteer Review Team members, the Independent Experts and the Ex-Officios. My preference is for all of the team members to be considered uniformly part of the same team, leaving behind the history of how we were selected. However, if the team prefers to retain the distinctions, it's certainly workable. This is a small point, but since I found myself reacting internally and, to some extent, tripping over it while I chaired the call, I thought I'd mention it. Preferences? Thanks, Steve
Dear Steve, I felt uncomfortable when such separation was made evident. My experience of working within the WHOIS Review Team, and within many other ICANN-related projects, strongly recommends not to do (or at least not to pay much attention internally) to any distinctions. I hope we are one team, we will work as one team, and only if we all treat each other as an equal team member, our work will be really productive and efficient. Thank you for your attention to this - really minor - point, and for giving a chance to express a personal view on it. Kind regards, Michael 2013/2/23 Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com>
During the organization call Friday I was using a print out of the members. It had separate sections for the Volunteer Review Team members, the Independent Experts and the Ex-Officios. My preference is for all of the team members to be considered uniformly part of the same team, leaving behind the history of how we were selected. However, if the team prefers to retain the distinctions, it's certainly workable.
This is a small point, but since I found myself reacting internally and, to some extent, tripping over it while I chaired the call, I thought I'd mention it.
Preferences?
Thanks,
Steve
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
:) Yes, each of is often nervous about expressing small discomforts. In this case, I think staff was also trying to be careful and not accidentally offend any of us. Now that I'm officially in my old age, one of the few perks is getting more relaxed about speaking about these small points. Steve On Feb 23, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Michael Yakushev <m.yakushev@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Steve,
I felt uncomfortable when such separation was made evident. My experience of working within the WHOIS Review Team, and within many other ICANN-related projects, strongly recommends not to do (or at least not to pay much attention internally) to any distinctions. I hope we are one team, we will work as one team, and only if we all treat each other as an equal team member, our work will be really productive and efficient.
Thank you for your attention to this - really minor - point, and for giving a chance to express a personal view on it.
Kind regards, Michael
2013/2/23 Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> During the organization call Friday I was using a print out of the members. It had separate sections for the Volunteer Review Team members, the Independent Experts and the Ex-Officios. My preference is for all of the team members to be considered uniformly part of the same team, leaving behind the history of how we were selected. However, if the team prefers to retain the distinctions, it's certainly workable.
This is a small point, but since I found myself reacting internally and, to some extent, tripping over it while I chaired the call, I thought I'd mention it.
Preferences?
Thanks,
Steve
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Hi, I am in full support of egalitarian treatment for the various types of participant in this team. avri On 23 Feb 2013, at 14:16, Steve Crocker wrote:
During the organization call Friday I was using a print out of the members. It had separate sections for the Volunteer Review Team members, the Independent Experts and the Ex-Officios. My preference is for all of the team members to be considered uniformly part of the same team, leaving behind the history of how we were selected. However, if the team prefers to retain the distinctions, it's certainly workable.
This is a small point, but since I found myself reacting internally and, to some extent, tripping over it while I chaired the call, I thought I'd mention it.
Preferences?
Thanks,
Steve
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
+1 demi Quoting "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
I am in full support of egalitarian treatment for the various types of participant in this team.
avri
On 23 Feb 2013, at 14:16, Steve Crocker wrote:
During the organization call Friday I was using a print out of the members. It had separate sections for the Volunteer Review Team members, the Independent Experts and the Ex-Officios. My preference is for all of the team members to be considered uniformly part of the same team, leaving behind the history of how we were selected. However, if the team prefers to retain the distinctions, it's certainly workable.
This is a small point, but since I found myself reacting internally and, to some extent, tripping over it while I chaired the call, I thought I'd mention it.
Preferences?
Thanks,
Steve
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
I agree that there need no explicit separation. When/if we publish lists, it would be good to mention the lineage, much as we typically put (Chair) after a name. But no need to differentiate while we are working. Alan At 23/02/2013 02:16 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
During the organization call Friday I was using a print out of the members. It had separate sections for the Volunteer Review Team members, the Independent Experts and the Ex-Officios. My preference is for all of the team members to be considered uniformly part of the same team, leaving behind the history of how we were selected. However, if the team prefers to retain the distinctions, it's certainly workable.
This is a small point, but since I found myself reacting internally and, to some extent, tripping over it while I chaired the call, I thought I'd mention it.
Preferences?
Thanks,
Steve
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Speaking as one of the co-selectors, our first concern was picking a team that had strong experience and expertise. We did pay a tiny bit of attention to the fact that people had applied via the Independent Experts route, and we recognized that if we didn't pick any from that list it would send a negative signal about the utility of applying via that path. But, at least from my viewpoint, I don't think of someone chosen via that path as having any greater or lesser weight or any more or less specific role than members coming from the SOs and ACs. Bottom line: I think we've already documented the lineage, and my preference would be to drop all references to lineage going forward. Annotating the names of the chair and vice or co-chair is quite different and definitely appropriate. Steve On Feb 23, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I agree that there need no explicit separation. When/if we publish lists, it would be good to mention the lineage, much as we typically put (Chair) after a name. But no need to differentiate while we are working.
Alan
At 23/02/2013 02:16 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
During the organization call Friday I was using a print out of the members. It had separate sections for the Volunteer Review Team members, the Independent Experts and the Ex-Officios. My preference is for all of the team members to be considered uniformly part of the same team, leaving behind the history of how we were selected. However, if the team prefers to retain the distinctions, it's certainly workable.
This is a small point, but since I found myself reacting internally and, to some extent, tripping over it while I chaired the call, I thought I'd mention it.
Preferences?
Thanks,
Steve
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Fine with me. The thought was not to imply weighting but just documenting what had happened. Alan At 23/02/2013 03:13 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
Speaking as one of the co-selectors, our first concern was picking a team that had strong experience and expertise. We did pay a tiny bit of attention to the fact that people had applied via the Independent Experts route, and we recognized that if we didn't pick any from that list it would send a negative signal about the utility of applying via that path. But, at least from my viewpoint, I don't think of someone chosen via that path as having any greater or lesser weight or any more or less specific role than members coming from the SOs and ACs. Bottom line: I think we've already documented the lineage, and my preference would be to drop all references to lineage going forward. Annotating the names of the chair and vice or co-chair is quite different and definitely appropriate.
Steve
On Feb 23, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I agree that there need no explicit separation. When/if we publish lists, it would be good to mention the lineage, much as we typically put (Chair) after a name. But no need to differentiate while we are working.
Alan
At 23/02/2013 02:16 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
During the organization call Friday I was using a print out of the members. It had separate sections for the Volunteer Review Team members, the Independent Experts and the Ex-Officios. My preference is for all of the team members to be considered uniformly part of the same team, leaving behind the history of how we were selected. However, if the team prefers to retain the distinctions, it's certainly workable.
This is a small point, but since I found myself reacting internally and, to some extent, tripping over it while I chaired the call, I thought I'd mention it.
Preferences?
Thanks,
Steve
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Hallo Steve, I would definitely prefer if all are treated the same; regardless of how they joined the team, moving forward. regards Fiona ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Crocker" <steve@shinkuro.com> To: "ATRT2" <atrt2@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:16:01 PM Subject: [atrt2] Egalitarian listing of ATRT2 members? During the organization call Friday I was using a print out of the members. It had separate sections for the Volunteer Review Team members, the Independent Experts and the Ex-Officios. My preference is for all of the team members to be considered uniformly part of the same team, leaving behind the history of how we were selected. However, if the team prefers to retain the distinctions, it's certainly workable. This is a small point, but since I found myself reacting internally and, to some extent, tripping over it while I chaired the call, I thought I'd mention it. Preferences? Thanks, Steve _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
All, I went back and reviewed the work schedule of the ATRT1 during 2010. The ATRT1 kicked off its work with an initial conference call on April 12, 2010. In total, the ATRT1 held 16 conference calls and 5 face-to-face meetings. For the face-to-face meetings, the ATRT1 held 2 meetings in conjunction with ICANN meetings. It also held 3 "stand alone" meetings in Marina Del Rey in May, Beijing at the end of August and in Boston in October to meet with its retained Independent Expert, The Berkman Center. As for the conference calls, it held 2 conference calls prior to its first face-to-face meeting in Marina Del Rey, 2 conference calls prior to its second face-to-face meeting in Brussels at the June ICANN meeting, 5 conference calls prior to its third face-to-face meeting in Beijing at the end of August, 4 conference calls prior to its fourth face-to-face meeting in Boston in October, 2 conference calls prior to its fifth face-to-face meeting in Cartagena at the ICANN meeting in December. To be clear, I do not believe that the ATRT2 must follow the same schedule. However, this provides a useful reference for the frequency of interactions and the rhythm of the work required to produce the first set of recommendations. I also attach the preliminary report of ATRT1 from its first face-to-face meeting in Marina Del Rey in May 2010. At that meeting, ATRT1 addressed the following items: - Conflict of Interest Policy and Statements - Election of Chair and Vice Chair - Interviews with ICANN staff including the CEO - Methodology and Timetable for ATRT work - Discussion of Conceptual Framework and Possible Performance Indicators - Adoption of a work calendar and deliverables While the terms of reference for ATRT2 will be slightly different from ATRT1, the organizational tasks will be likely similar. If I recall, there were assignments coming out of the second ATRT1 conference call for certain members to draft a proposed methodology for the work and other prep work to set the stage for the Marina Del Rey meeting. We should discuss how we want to prepare for the meeting coming up in mid-March to be efficient in moving the work of ATRT2 forward. Regards, Brian On 2/26/13 7:59 AM, "Fiona Asonga" <fasonga@kixp.or.ke> wrote:
Hallo Steve,
I would definitely prefer if all are treated the same; regardless of how they joined the team, moving forward.
regards
Fiona
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Crocker" <steve@shinkuro.com> To: "ATRT2" <atrt2@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:16:01 PM Subject: [atrt2] Egalitarian listing of ATRT2 members?
During the organization call Friday I was using a print out of the members. It had separate sections for the Volunteer Review Team members, the Independent Experts and the Ex-Officios. My preference is for all of the team members to be considered uniformly part of the same team, leaving behind the history of how we were selected. However, if the team prefers to retain the distinctions, it's certainly workable.
This is a small point, but since I found myself reacting internally and, to some extent, tripping over it while I chaired the call, I thought I'd mention it.
Preferences?
Thanks,
Steve
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Excellent input Many tahnks Carlos Raul Enviado desde un dispositivo Blackberry® de Kolbi -----Original Message----- From: Brian Cute <bcute@pir.org> Sender: atrt2-bounces@icann.org Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:45:29 To: ATRT2<atrt2@icann.org> Subject: Re: [atrt2] Egalitarian listing of ATRT2 members? All, I went back and reviewed the work schedule of the ATRT1 during 2010. The ATRT1 kicked off its work with an initial conference call on April 12, 2010. In total, the ATRT1 held 16 conference calls and 5 face-to-face meetings. For the face-to-face meetings, the ATRT1 held 2 meetings in conjunction with ICANN meetings. It also held 3 "stand alone" meetings in Marina Del Rey in May, Beijing at the end of August and in Boston in October to meet with its retained Independent Expert, The Berkman Center. As for the conference calls, it held 2 conference calls prior to its first face-to-face meeting in Marina Del Rey, 2 conference calls prior to its second face-to-face meeting in Brussels at the June ICANN meeting, 5 conference calls prior to its third face-to-face meeting in Beijing at the end of August, 4 conference calls prior to its fourth face-to-face meeting in Boston in October, 2 conference calls prior to its fifth face-to-face meeting in Cartagena at the ICANN meeting in December. To be clear, I do not believe that the ATRT2 must follow the same schedule. However, this provides a useful reference for the frequency of interactions and the rhythm of the work required to produce the first set of recommendations. I also attach the preliminary report of ATRT1 from its first face-to-face meeting in Marina Del Rey in May 2010. At that meeting, ATRT1 addressed the following items: - Conflict of Interest Policy and Statements - Election of Chair and Vice Chair - Interviews with ICANN staff including the CEO - Methodology and Timetable for ATRT work - Discussion of Conceptual Framework and Possible Performance Indicators - Adoption of a work calendar and deliverables While the terms of reference for ATRT2 will be slightly different from ATRT1, the organizational tasks will be likely similar. If I recall, there were assignments coming out of the second ATRT1 conference call for certain members to draft a proposed methodology for the work and other prep work to set the stage for the Marina Del Rey meeting. We should discuss how we want to prepare for the meeting coming up in mid-March to be efficient in moving the work of ATRT2 forward. Regards, Brian On 2/26/13 7:59 AM, "Fiona Asonga" <fasonga@kixp.or.ke> wrote:
Hallo Steve,
I would definitely prefer if all are treated the same; regardless of how they joined the team, moving forward.
regards
Fiona
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Crocker" <steve@shinkuro.com> To: "ATRT2" <atrt2@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:16:01 PM Subject: [atrt2] Egalitarian listing of ATRT2 members?
During the organization call Friday I was using a print out of the members. It had separate sections for the Volunteer Review Team members, the Independent Experts and the Ex-Officios. My preference is for all of the team members to be considered uniformly part of the same team, leaving behind the history of how we were selected. However, if the team prefers to retain the distinctions, it's certainly workable.
This is a small point, but since I found myself reacting internally and, to some extent, tripping over it while I chaired the call, I thought I'd mention it.
Preferences?
Thanks,
Steve
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Brian Cute -
crg＠isoc-cr.org -
demi＠nic.br -
Fiona Asonga -
Michael Yakushev -
Steve Crocker