Dear Councillors, We have received the input of the GNSO Council on the limited scope for ATRT3 proposed by CCWG-Accountability. As you remember, we also reviewed the suggestion from the CCWG-Accountability and we supported to limit the scope of the ATRT3 to avoid overlap with the work of the CCWG. As you will see the GNSO Council also supports the suggestion in general but they believe that the actual scope should be upon the review team to decide. We did not discuss who has the authority to limit the scope but somehow I assumed that those would be SO/ACs, not the selected review team. Technically that would mean that people volunteer without knowing the exact scope (in fact, the call is out since the end of January: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-01-31-en) and maybe somebody does not volunteer thinking that a larger scope would require a lot of time but would have volunteered to participate in a review with a limited scope. There are many arguments in support or in rejection of the idea (to allow the review team to decide). On Monday 13 March there will be a discussion among SO/AC Chairs on the scope of ATRT3. I would appreciate your thoughts and guidance on the issue. It should be noted that the ICANN Board in its response to the CCWG’s proposal to limit the scope responded: “It is not up to the Board to dictate the scope of this important community review. While we share the concerns raised of avoiding duplication of resources, it is essential that the broader ICANN community have a voice in determining how the ATRT3 should be scoped in alignment with the Bylaws. The Board and the ICANN Organization stand ready to support the community's direction.” One more thing – as we have discussed many times before, according to the new Bylaws specific reviews, such as ATRT, are supposed to be guided by Operating Standards that still are not developed. According to the bylaws situations like this should be described in the OS. In practice, they are not, therefore we need to find and propose a wise solution. Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 12:35 AM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org>; gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Input on Proposed Limited Scope for ATRT3 Dear Katrina, On behalf of the GNSO Council, please find attached the GNSO Council Input on the Proposed Limited Scope for ATRT3. This document will also be published shortly here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/drafts Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine@icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...> From: <gnso-secs-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > Date: Monday, March 6, 2017 at 11:11 PM To: "gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> " <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-secs] Please FORWARD the attached to those named in the list in the email Hello – the attached should be sent to: * The CCWG-Accountability co-chairs (Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill) and their staff support (Bernard Tucotte) * The other SO/AC chairs * MSSI staff (Larisa Gurnick, Margie Milam, Karen Mulberry) And posted on the GNSO Correspondence webpage. Thanks! Cheers Mary