Dear Bernard, All, The ccNSO Council supports the suggestion to limit the scope of the ATRT3 review. Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Patrik Fältström <patrik@frobbit.se> Date: Friday 27 January 2017 12:29 To: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> Cc: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>, <thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, <ASO-chairs@aso.icann.org>, Louie Lee <louie@louie.net>, <tsinha@umd.edu>, <bverd@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Olof Nordling <Olof.nordling@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.ullrich@icann.org>, ACCT-Staff <Acct-staff@icann.org>, <aso@icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <Bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, David Olive <David.olive@icann.org>, Marika Konings <Marika.konings@icann.org>, Carlos Reyes <Carlos.reyes@icann.org>, <Steve.sheng@icann.org>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick@icann.org>, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, SSAC SSAC <ssac@icann.org> Subject: Re: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder [+SSAC] Dear Bernard, My apologies for missing you actually had a question at the end. I interpreted the message as a description of the situation, which SSAC already have said we are comfortable with. The SSAC supports the proposal from the CCWG-A Co-Chairs that the scope of ATRT3 be restricted to a review of the implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Patrik Fältström SSAC Chair On 25 Jan 2017, at 21:41, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
SO and AC Chairs,
This is a reminder that the CCWG-Accountability has not received any replies to its December 2nd proposal (original message below) regarding the scope of the upcoming ATRT3 review which will be publishing its call for volunteers by the end of January.
As stated in the proposal there are a number of significant overlaps between the work of the CCWG-Accountability and a standard ATRT review which would cause an important duplication of work between these two processes.
The CCWG-Accountability simply wishes to ensure that the SO's and AC's are aware that if there is no request from the SO's and AC's to modify the scope of the ATRT3 review prior to its launch that it will proceed as a standard review.
The Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability remain available to the SO's and AC's for further discussions or answer any questions.
Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability for The Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear SO & AC Chairs, The CCWG-Accountability (CCWG) at its face to face meeting at the ICANN 56 in Helsinki considered the implications of the collision of topics, and therefore efforts, between ATRT3 and Work Stream 2 (WS2) (please see Annex 1 for a detailed consideration of this issue). In its discussion of this issue the CCWG considered the following points: · Collision of topics between WS2 and ATRT3 - There is potential for significant overlap between WS2 topics and the scope of ATRT3 as 6 of the 9 WS2 topics are accountability and transparency issues ATRT3 could also consider. · Timing of the two activities - WS2 began in July 2016 with an objective of completing its work by the end of 2017. ATRT3, which is expected to take 12 months to complete, is currently scheduled to begin in January 2017 but could potentially be delayed until February 2018 under the new Bylaws (which require ATRT every 5 years versus the AoC requirement for every 3 years). It would seem inefficient, at best, to have both of these activities working on the same topics independently, while drawing on the same pool of community volunteers. At worst, ATRT3 and WS2 groups could issue recommendations that are conflicting or duplicative. · Implementation of recommendations – The Bylaws for WS2 give CCWG recommendations greater weight when it comes to board consideration, relative to recommendations from an ATRT organized under the AoC. While in Helsinki, the CCWG concluded its preferred approach, as communicated in our 8-Aug-2016 letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-et-al-to-icann- board-08aug16-en.pdf> to the Board of ICANN: Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the limited scope of assessing implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new recommendations for accountability and transparency. The fourth ATRT would convene before 2022 and would assess all accountability and transparency topics and make recommendations The ICANN Board replied <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-sanchez-et-a l-24oct16-en.pdf> to the CCWG letter on 24-Oct-2016, saying, 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. Accordingly, the CCWG is now proposing to community leadership the following approach: • Requesting that the SO/AC leadership select (following the new Bylaws) a small group of review team members that have either participated in or closely tracked ATRT2. • Requesting the ICANN organization to do a "self-assessment" reporting on a) the extent to which each recommendation was followed and/or implemented; b) the effectiveness in addressing the issues identified by ATRT2; and c) the need for additional implementation. • Specifically request that the Review Team exclude the issues that are already covered by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 (see Annex 1). • Suggesting that the work be conducted & completed more quickly than normal, such as asking that the Final Report be issued within six months If the suggested approach above is agreeable to SO/AC community, the next steps would be: • SO/AC leadership to issue a public statement or a letter to ICANN CEO and Board Chair that explains why limited scope is appropriate and articulates that they have broad support of the ICANN community • Call for Volunteers to note limited scope & unique expertise sought • Reach out to previous ATRT Review Team members and encourage them to apply for the narrowly-scoped ATRT3 Review Team • Propose a Charter for the ATRT3 Review Team to adopt that tracks the limited Scope
Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez & Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs
_______________________________________________ Acct-Staff mailing list Acct-Staff@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/acct-staff