Re: [ATRT3-implementation-shepherds] ATRT3 implementation shepherds: Questions from ATRT3 Board Caucus Group
Dear friends Even not requested to comment the questions made by the Board caucus group I would like to remember the response from Leon to the minority report regarding Reviews: “that there are significant differences between the recommendations that we are including in the final report and what was commented by the community. So this might be an issue at the time the board considers the report, and what I'm hearing is that there is some desire to further engage with the community so that ICANN | Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Report | May 2020 | 333 they are able to comment on these recommendations since, again, they seem to be significantly different from those in which they were able to comment during the public comment period. So I just want to flag this because it might be an issue when time comes for the board to consider these recommendation. And I don't know if this calls for any public comment as Daniel is signaling, but certainly, there needs to be some sort of engagement with the community so that they are updated on these changes and they are able maybe to comment on this, or at least be aware of these differences, and then the board is able to consider rightfully these recommendations.” We note for accuracy and completeness that León Sánchez further explained (at page 61 of the transcript) that his “flagging this issue does not equate to me requesting or pushing for another public comment period, just to be clear.” From my view, I remember give all the time to our colleagues inside ATRT3 to explain the reasons the group they represent, and in this regard I do not see lack of opportunity to debate and take it back to their communities. For the other side, I believe we had the expectation, not possible indeed, to have more interaction with the community, time to explain each point better etc. The one year time, we were under, give us few opportunity to get more feedback or even enough time to better explaining our proposal to each community, especially those better served by the current situation ,then more opposed to changes. In my opinion it shall be consider, after the conclusion and ( we expect) end of the pandemic situation, before any position against it, give some opportunity to this interaction with groups, since in my view what they were most afraid of was the expectation of doing the full work alone. However, our proposals do allow the use of external consultants… Our proposal is a radical change no question on this. But we all agreed there are huge dissatisfaction with the current solution on reviews among the AC/SO, demanding too much time from the community, with not enough good experiences and certainly high cost to ICANN.org. Normally changes on the process anyone is used to is hard to be accepted by all. But we have understood and the proposal itself offers a solution for the questions raised. Explain directly to those groups will be the real solution IMO. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: ATRT3-implementation-shepherds <atrt3-implementation-shepherds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jennifer Bryce <jennifer.bryce@icann.org> Date: Friday, September 4, 2020 at 09:33 To: "atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org" <atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org> Cc: Leon Sanchez <leon.sanchez@board.icann.org> Subject: [ATRT3-implementation-shepherds] ATRT3 implementation shepherds: Questions from ATRT3 Board Caucus Group Dear ATRT3 implementation shepherds, I hope this email finds you all well. Attached, please find questions from the ATRT3 Board Caucus Group, intended to help focus the discussion during your joint meeting on Tuesday, 8 September at 13:00 UTC. Written responses are not requested. The ATRT3 Board Caucus Group is looking forward to the meeting. You can find information on the makeup of the group here<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-caucus-membership-2019-06-27-en>. The discussion will be publicly archived on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/x/BYM4C>. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Jennifer -- Jennifer Bryce Associate Project Manager, Review Support and Accountability Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann Email: jennifer.bryce@icann.org
Well said Vanda and I would encourage you to say it again in the call... On Tue, Sep 8, 2020, 06:12 Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote:
Dear friends
Even not requested to comment the questions made by the Board caucus group I would like to remember the response from Leon to the minority report regarding Reviews:
*“that there are significant differences between the recommendations that we are including in the final report and what was commented by the community. So this might be an issue at the time the board considers the report, and what I'm hearing is that there is some desire to further engage with the community so that *
*ICANN | Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Report | May 2020 | 333 *
*they are able to comment on these recommendations since, again, they seem to be significantly different from those in which they were able to comment during the public comment period. So I just want to flag this because it might be an issue when time comes for the board to consider these recommendation. And I don't know if this calls for any public comment as Daniel is signaling, but certainly, there needs to be some sort of engagement with the community so that they are updated on these changes and they are able maybe to comment on this, or at least be aware of these differences, and then the board is able to consider rightfully these recommendations.” We note for accuracy and completeness that León Sánchez further explained (at page 61 of the transcript) that his “flagging this issue does not equate to me requesting or pushing for another public comment period, just to be clear.” *
From my view, I remember give all the time to our colleagues inside ATRT3 to explain the reasons the group they represent, and in this regard I do not see lack of opportunity to debate and take it back to their communities.
For the other side, I believe we had the expectation, not possible indeed, to have more interaction with the community, time to explain each point better etc. The one year time, we were under, give us few opportunity to get more feedback or even enough time to better explaining our proposal to each community, especially those better served by the current situation ,then more opposed to changes.
In my opinion it shall be consider, after the conclusion and ( we expect) end of the pandemic situation, before any position against it, give some opportunity to this interaction with groups, since in my view what they were most afraid of was the expectation of doing the full work alone. However, our proposals do allow the use of external consultants…
Our proposal is a radical change no question on this. But we all agreed there are huge dissatisfaction with the current solution on reviews among the AC/SO, demanding too much time from the community, with not enough good experiences and certainly high cost to ICANN.org.
Normally changes on the process anyone is used to is hard to be accepted by all. But we have understood and the proposal itself offers a solution for the questions raised.
Explain directly to those groups will be the real solution IMO.
*Vanda Scartezini*
*Polo Consultores Associados*
*Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004*
*01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
*Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253*
*Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 *
*Sorry for any typos. *
*From: *ATRT3-implementation-shepherds < atrt3-implementation-shepherds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jennifer Bryce <jennifer.bryce@icann.org> *Date: *Friday, September 4, 2020 at 09:33 *To: *"atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org" < atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org> *Cc: *Leon Sanchez <leon.sanchez@board.icann.org> *Subject: *[ATRT3-implementation-shepherds] ATRT3 implementation shepherds: Questions from ATRT3 Board Caucus Group
Dear ATRT3 implementation shepherds,
I hope this email finds you all well. Attached, please find questions from the ATRT3 Board Caucus Group, intended to help focus the discussion during your joint meeting on Tuesday, 8 September at 13:00 UTC. Written responses are not requested.
The ATRT3 Board Caucus Group is looking forward to the meeting. You can find information on the makeup of the group here <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-caucus-membership-2019-06-27-en>. The discussion will be publicly archived on the wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/BYM4C>.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best, Jennifer
--
Jennifer Bryce
Associate Project Manager, Review Support and Accountability
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann
Email: jennifer.bryce@icann.org
_______________________________________________ ATRT3-implementation-shepherds mailing list ATRT3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt3-implementation-shepherds
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
HI Cheryl, Can do, but may use too much time. But to have a better organization, better you or Pat to flag me and I will do, in order to not disrupt the meeting. We have too many question to answer and I do not know how long they plan to stay with us… Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> Date: Monday, September 7, 2020 at 17:30 To: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Cc: "atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org" <atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ATRT3-implementation-shepherds] ATRT3 implementation shepherds: Questions from ATRT3 Board Caucus Group Well said Vanda and I would encourage you to say it again in the call... On Tue, Sep 8, 2020, 06:12 Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: Dear friends Even not requested to comment the questions made by the Board caucus group I would like to remember the response from Leon to the minority report regarding Reviews: “that there are significant differences between the recommendations that we are including in the final report and what was commented by the community. So this might be an issue at the time the board considers the report, and what I'm hearing is that there is some desire to further engage with the community so that ICANN | Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Report | May 2020 | 333 they are able to comment on these recommendations since, again, they seem to be significantly different from those in which they were able to comment during the public comment period. So I just want to flag this because it might be an issue when time comes for the board to consider these recommendation. And I don't know if this calls for any public comment as Daniel is signaling, but certainly, there needs to be some sort of engagement with the community so that they are updated on these changes and they are able maybe to comment on this, or at least be aware of these differences, and then the board is able to consider rightfully these recommendations.” We note for accuracy and completeness that León Sánchez further explained (at page 61 of the transcript) that his “flagging this issue does not equate to me requesting or pushing for another public comment period, just to be clear.” From my view, I remember give all the time to our colleagues inside ATRT3 to explain the reasons the group they represent, and in this regard I do not see lack of opportunity to debate and take it back to their communities. For the other side, I believe we had the expectation, not possible indeed, to have more interaction with the community, time to explain each point better etc. The one year time, we were under, give us few opportunity to get more feedback or even enough time to better explaining our proposal to each community, especially those better served by the current situation ,then more opposed to changes. In my opinion it shall be consider, after the conclusion and ( we expect) end of the pandemic situation, before any position against it, give some opportunity to this interaction with groups, since in my view what they were most afraid of was the expectation of doing the full work alone. However, our proposals do allow the use of external consultants… Our proposal is a radical change no question on this. But we all agreed there are huge dissatisfaction with the current solution on reviews among the AC/SO, demanding too much time from the community, with not enough good experiences and certainly high cost to ICANN.org. Normally changes on the process anyone is used to is hard to be accepted by all. But we have understood and the proposal itself offers a solution for the questions raised. Explain directly to those groups will be the real solution IMO. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: ATRT3-implementation-shepherds <atrt3-implementation-shepherds-bounces@icann.org<mailto:atrt3-implementation-shepherds-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jennifer Bryce <jennifer.bryce@icann.org<mailto:jennifer.bryce@icann.org>> Date: Friday, September 4, 2020 at 09:33 To: "atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org<mailto:atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org>" <atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org<mailto:atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org>> Cc: Leon Sanchez <leon.sanchez@board.icann.org<mailto:leon.sanchez@board.icann.org>> Subject: [ATRT3-implementation-shepherds] ATRT3 implementation shepherds: Questions from ATRT3 Board Caucus Group Dear ATRT3 implementation shepherds, I hope this email finds you all well. Attached, please find questions from the ATRT3 Board Caucus Group, intended to help focus the discussion during your joint meeting on Tuesday, 8 September at 13:00 UTC. Written responses are not requested. The ATRT3 Board Caucus Group is looking forward to the meeting. You can find information on the makeup of the group here<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-caucus-membership-2019-06-27-en>. The discussion will be publicly archived on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/x/BYM4C>. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Jennifer -- Jennifer Bryce Associate Project Manager, Review Support and Accountability Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann Email: jennifer.bryce@icann.org<mailto:jennifer.bryce@icann.org> _______________________________________________ ATRT3-implementation-shepherds mailing list ATRT3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org<mailto:ATRT3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt3-implementation-shepherds _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Noted. On Tue, Sep 8, 2020, 07:07 Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote:
HI Cheryl,
Can do, but may use too much time. But to have a better organization, better you or Pat to flag me and I will do, in order to not disrupt the meeting.
We have too many question to answer and I do not know how long they plan to stay with us…
*Vanda Scartezini*
*Polo Consultores Associados*
*Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004*
*01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
*Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253*
*Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 *
*Sorry for any typos. *
*From: *Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, September 7, 2020 at 17:30 *To: *Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> *Cc: *"atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org" < atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [ATRT3-implementation-shepherds] ATRT3 implementation shepherds: Questions from ATRT3 Board Caucus Group
Well said Vanda and I would encourage you to say it again in the call...
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020, 06:12 Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote:
Dear friends
Even not requested to comment the questions made by the Board caucus group I would like to remember the response from Leon to the minority report regarding Reviews:
*“that there are significant differences between the recommendations that we are including in the final report and what was commented by the community. So this might be an issue at the time the board considers the report, and what I'm hearing is that there is some desire to further engage with the community so that *
*ICANN | Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Report | May 2020 | 333 *
*they are able to comment on these recommendations since, again, they seem to be significantly different from those in which they were able to comment during the public comment period. So I just want to flag this because it might be an issue when time comes for the board to consider these recommendation. And I don't know if this calls for any public comment as Daniel is signaling, but certainly, there needs to be some sort of engagement with the community so that they are updated on these changes and they are able maybe to comment on this, or at least be aware of these differences, and then the board is able to consider rightfully these recommendations.” We note for accuracy and completeness that León Sánchez further explained (at page 61 of the transcript) that his “flagging this issue does not equate to me requesting or pushing for another public comment period, just to be clear.” *
From my view, I remember give all the time to our colleagues inside ATRT3 to explain the reasons the group they represent, and in this regard I do not see lack of opportunity to debate and take it back to their communities.
For the other side, I believe we had the expectation, not possible indeed, to have more interaction with the community, time to explain each point better etc. The one year time, we were under, give us few opportunity to get more feedback or even enough time to better explaining our proposal to each community, especially those better served by the current situation ,then more opposed to changes.
In my opinion it shall be consider, after the conclusion and ( we expect) end of the pandemic situation, before any position against it, give some opportunity to this interaction with groups, since in my view what they were most afraid of was the expectation of doing the full work alone. However, our proposals do allow the use of external consultants…
Our proposal is a radical change no question on this. But we all agreed there are huge dissatisfaction with the current solution on reviews among the AC/SO, demanding too much time from the community, with not enough good experiences and certainly high cost to ICANN.org.
Normally changes on the process anyone is used to is hard to be accepted by all. But we have understood and the proposal itself offers a solution for the questions raised.
Explain directly to those groups will be the real solution IMO.
*Vanda Scartezini*
*Polo Consultores Associados*
*Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004*
*01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
*Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253*
*Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 *
*Sorry for any typos. *
*From: *ATRT3-implementation-shepherds < atrt3-implementation-shepherds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jennifer Bryce <jennifer.bryce@icann.org> *Date: *Friday, September 4, 2020 at 09:33 *To: *"atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org" < atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org> *Cc: *Leon Sanchez <leon.sanchez@board.icann.org> *Subject: *[ATRT3-implementation-shepherds] ATRT3 implementation shepherds: Questions from ATRT3 Board Caucus Group
Dear ATRT3 implementation shepherds,
I hope this email finds you all well. Attached, please find questions from the ATRT3 Board Caucus Group, intended to help focus the discussion during your joint meeting on Tuesday, 8 September at 13:00 UTC. Written responses are not requested.
The ATRT3 Board Caucus Group is looking forward to the meeting. You can find information on the makeup of the group here <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-caucus-membership-2019-06-27-en>. The discussion will be publicly archived on the wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/BYM4C>.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best, Jennifer
--
Jennifer Bryce
Associate Project Manager, Review Support and Accountability
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann
Email: jennifer.bryce@icann.org
_______________________________________________ ATRT3-implementation-shepherds mailing list ATRT3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt3-implementation-shepherds
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (2)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
-
Vanda Scartezini