Triage recommendation 09-2016, Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2
Dear Councillors, Please find below the proposed triage recommendation 09-2016. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of 6 April, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed recommendation. Thank you. Topic: 09-2016 - Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2 Originator: ICANN, CCWG Accountability Summary of request: With the completion of the Work Stream 1 report and delivery to NTIA in March 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-10-en>, work is beginning on the implementation of the Work Stream 1 recommendations, followed by the development of a Work Stream 2 report. The CCWG-Accountability is open to anyone who wishes to join, and the group welcomes all interested stakeholders to join in this next phase. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en Date received: 29 March 2016 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: The next meeting of the CCWG-Accountability will take place on Tuesday, 5 April from 19:00-21:00 UTC to review draft Bylaw language as a part of implementation of Work Stream 1. The group anticipates finalizing discussions on the draft Bylaws in mid-April. After these discussions are completed, the group will focus on the inventory of Work Stream 2 items. Recommended action, if any: Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done. Expertise needed, if any: policy, legal, strategic, operation, managerial Date of submission to Triage Committee: 30 March 2016 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 01 April 2016, 23:59 UTC Date of submission to Council: 5 April 2016 Deadline Council decision: 6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: middle Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org
This has my approval, but going forward I think it is unreasonable of ICANN Staff to put a Triage request to Council wth a 24hr turn-around time: Date of submission to Council: 5 April 2016 Deadline Council decision: 6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC This is really unrealistic. Who is running the show here? Best Regards, /Stephen From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joke Braeken Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 3:24 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Triage recommendation 09-2016, Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2 Dear Councillors, Please find below the proposed triage recommendation 09-2016. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of 6 April, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed recommendation. Thank you. Topic: 09-2016 - Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2 Originator: ICANN, CCWG Accountability Summary of request: With the completion of the Work Stream 1 report and delivery to NTIA in March 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-10-en>, work is beginning on the implementation of the Work Stream 1 recommendations, followed by the development of a Work Stream 2 report. The CCWG-Accountability is open to anyone who wishes to join, and the group welcomes all interested stakeholders to join in this next phase. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en Date received: 29 March 2016 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: The next meeting of the CCWG-Accountability will take place on Tuesday, 5 April from 19:00-21:00 UTC to review draft Bylaw language as a part of implementation of Work Stream 1. The group anticipates finalizing discussions on the draft Bylaws in mid-April. After these discussions are completed, the group will focus on the inventory of Work Stream 2 items. Recommended action, if any: Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done. Expertise needed, if any: policy, legal, strategic, operation, managerial Date of submission to Triage Committee: 30 March 2016 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 01 April 2016, 23:59 UTC Date of submission to Council: 5 April 2016 Deadline Council decision: 6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: middle Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: <https://twitter.com/ccNSO> https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/> https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org
This also has my approval. I'm actually a bit confused however as to why we are being asked for approval, since the recommendation seems to say the action we are being asked about has been done.
Recommended action, if any: Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done.
Perhaps we could look at improving the process for future requests? Perhaps some actions do not even need our formal consent? Where consent is required of Councillors, even entirely routine matters need at least two working days, particularly given the likelihood that some of us often take long-haul flights. Nigel On 05/04/16 08:59, Stephen Deerhake wrote:
This has my approval, but going forward I think it is unreasonable of ICANN Staff to put a Triage request to Council wth a 24hr turn-around time:
*Date of submission to Council:* 5 April 2016
*Deadline Council decision: *6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC
This is really unrealistic. Who is running the show here?
Best Regards,
/Stephen
*From:*owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Joke Braeken *Sent:* Tuesday, April 05, 2016 3:24 AM *To:* ccnso-council@icann.org *Subject:* [ccnso-council] Triage recommendation 09-2016, Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2
Dear Councillors,
Please find below the proposed triage recommendation 09-2016. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of 6 April, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed recommendation. Thank you.
*Topic: *09-2016 - Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2
*Originator: *ICANN, CCWG Accountability
*Summary of request:* With the completion of the Work Stream 1 report and delivery to NTIA in March 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-10-en>, work is beginning on the implementation of the Work Stream 1 recommendations, followed by the development of a Work Stream 2 report. The CCWG-Accountability is open to anyone who wishes to join, and the group welcomes all interested stakeholders to join in this next phase.
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en
*Date received: *29 March 2016
*Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: *The next meeting of the CCWG-Accountability will take place on Tuesday, 5 April from 19:00-21:00 UTC to review draft Bylaw language as a part of implementation of Work Stream 1. The group anticipates finalizing discussions on the draft Bylaws in mid-April. After these discussions are completed, the group will focus on the inventory of Work Stream 2 items.
*Recommended action, if any:* Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done.
*Expertise needed, if any:* policy, legal, strategic, operation, managerial
*Date of submission to Triage Committee:* 30 March 2016
*Recommendation received by Triage Committee:* 01 April 2016, 23:59 UTC
*Date of submission to Council:* 5 April 2016
*Deadline Council decision: *6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC
*Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: *middle
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
+1 M Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM Legal & Business Manager NIC Chile - University of Chile www.nic.cl +56229407734
El 05-04-2016, a las 05:18, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> escribió:
This also has my approval.
I'm actually a bit confused however as to why we are being asked for approval, since the recommendation seems to say the action we are being asked about has been done.
Recommended action, if any: Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done.
Perhaps we could look at improving the process for future requests? Perhaps some actions do not even need our formal consent?
Where consent is required of Councillors, even entirely routine matters need at least two working days, particularly given the likelihood that some of us often take long-haul flights.
Nigel
On 05/04/16 08:59, Stephen Deerhake wrote: This has my approval, but going forward I think it is unreasonable of ICANN Staff to put a Triage request to Council wth a 24hr turn-around time:
*Date of submission to Council:* 5 April 2016
*Deadline Council decision: *6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC
This is really unrealistic. Who is running the show here?
Best Regards,
/Stephen
*From:*owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Joke Braeken *Sent:* Tuesday, April 05, 2016 3:24 AM *To:* ccnso-council@icann.org *Subject:* [ccnso-council] Triage recommendation 09-2016, Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2
Dear Councillors,
Please find below the proposed triage recommendation 09-2016. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of 6 April, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed recommendation. Thank you.
*Topic: *09-2016 - Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2
*Originator: *ICANN, CCWG Accountability
*Summary of request:* With the completion of the Work Stream 1 report and delivery to NTIA in March 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-10-en>, work is beginning on the implementation of the Work Stream 1 recommendations, followed by the development of a Work Stream 2 report. The CCWG-Accountability is open to anyone who wishes to join, and the group welcomes all interested stakeholders to join in this next phase.
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en
*Date received: *29 March 2016
*Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: *The next meeting of the CCWG-Accountability will take place on Tuesday, 5 April from 19:00-21:00 UTC to review draft Bylaw language as a part of implementation of Work Stream 1. The group anticipates finalizing discussions on the draft Bylaws in mid-April. After these discussions are completed, the group will focus on the inventory of Work Stream 2 items.
*Recommended action, if any:* Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done.
*Expertise needed, if any:* policy, legal, strategic, operation, managerial
*Date of submission to Triage Committee:* 30 March 2016
*Recommendation received by Triage Committee:* 01 April 2016, 23:59 UTC
*Date of submission to Council:* 5 April 2016
*Deadline Council decision: *6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC
*Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: *middle
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
Dear Nigel, Stephen, All, As we discussed some time ago, a recommendation of the Triage committee is what it is - a recommendation. The Triage committee looks into the issue and proposes a set of actions. The ccNSO Council can decide, e.g., to go along with the recommendation OR to come up with another approach. Yes, I agree, it is _highly problematic_ to call back something that has already been done. However, it is always possible to propose to do something in addition to what's already been done. About the timing. As you can see, we received the request on 29 March. The next meeting of the CCWG-Accountability takes place on 5 April. Please note, we're not talking about a month long window here, therefore let's be reasonable: the Secretariat needs time to process the request and the Triage Committee needs time to review the request and agree on actions (we need at least two of the TC members to reach an agreement and TC members also may have long-haul flights, vacations, daily job, etc). I am sure that everybody did their best and I'd like to thank the Secretariat and the members of the Triage Committee for their contribution! Surely, we always must work to improve our procedures and I hope that whenever it is possible we will allocate enough time for the Councillors to respond. Thank you! Regards, ]{atrina -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 11:18 AM To: sdeerhake@nic.as; 'Joke Braeken' <joke.braeken@icann.org>; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] RE: Triage recommendation 09-2016, Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2 This also has my approval. I'm actually a bit confused however as to why we are being asked for approval, since the recommendation seems to say the action we are being asked about has been done.
Recommended action, if any: Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done.
Perhaps we could look at improving the process for future requests? Perhaps some actions do not even need our formal consent? Where consent is required of Councillors, even entirely routine matters need at least two working days, particularly given the likelihood that some of us often take long-haul flights. Nigel On 05/04/16 08:59, Stephen Deerhake wrote:
This has my approval, but going forward I think it is unreasonable of ICANN Staff to put a Triage request to Council wth a 24hr turn-around time:
*Date of submission to Council:* 5 April 2016
*Deadline Council decision: *6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC
This is really unrealistic. Who is running the show here?
Best Regards,
/Stephen
*From:*owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Joke Braeken *Sent:* Tuesday, April 05, 2016 3:24 AM *To:* ccnso-council@icann.org *Subject:* [ccnso-council] Triage recommendation 09-2016, Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2
Dear Councillors,
Please find below the proposed triage recommendation 09-2016. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of 6 April, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed recommendation. Thank you.
*Topic: *09-2016 - Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2
*Originator: *ICANN, CCWG Accountability
*Summary of request:* With the completion of the Work Stream 1 report and delivery to NTIA in March 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-10-en>, work is beginning on the implementation of the Work Stream 1 recommendations, followed by the development of a Work Stream 2 report. The CCWG-Accountability is open to anyone who wishes to join, and the group welcomes all interested stakeholders to join in this next phase.
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en
*Date received: *29 March 2016
*Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: *The next meeting of the CCWG-Accountability will take place on Tuesday, 5 April from 19:00-21:00 UTC to review draft Bylaw language as a part of implementation of Work Stream 1. The group anticipates finalizing discussions on the draft Bylaws in mid-April. After these discussions are completed, the group will focus on the inventory of Work Stream 2 items.
*Recommended action, if any:* Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done.
*Expertise needed, if any:* policy, legal, strategic, operation, managerial
*Date of submission to Triage Committee:* 30 March 2016
*Recommendation received by Triage Committee:* 01 April 2016, 23:59 UTC
*Date of submission to Council:* 5 April 2016
*Deadline Council decision: *6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC
*Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: *middle
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
My point is that for some issues, we don't need to give consent. It's obvious to me that wholly routine actions (such as forwarding a public call from another part of ICANN) don't need micromanaging by us. And for those decisions where we do need to discuss and decide, we need to take the necessary time, On 05/04/16 14:43, Katrina Sataki wrote:
Dear Nigel, Stephen, All,
As we discussed some time ago, a recommendation of the Triage committee is what it is - a recommendation. The Triage committee looks into the issue and proposes a set of actions. The ccNSO Council can decide, e.g., to go along with the recommendation OR to come up with another approach. Yes, I agree, it is _highly problematic_ to call back something that has already been done. However, it is always possible to propose to do something in addition to what's already been done.
About the timing. As you can see, we received the request on 29 March. The next meeting of the CCWG-Accountability takes place on 5 April. Please note, we're not talking about a month long window here, therefore let's be reasonable: the Secretariat needs time to process the request and the Triage Committee needs time to review the request and agree on actions (we need at least two of the TC members to reach an agreement and TC members also may have long-haul flights, vacations, daily job, etc). I am sure that everybody did their best and I'd like to thank the Secretariat and the members of the Triage Committee for their contribution!
Surely, we always must work to improve our procedures and I hope that whenever it is possible we will allocate enough time for the Councillors to respond.
Thank you!
Regards,
]{atrina
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 11:18 AM To: sdeerhake@nic.as; 'Joke Braeken' <joke.braeken@icann.org>; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] RE: Triage recommendation 09-2016, Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2
This also has my approval.
I'm actually a bit confused however as to why we are being asked for approval, since the recommendation seems to say the action we are being asked about has been done.
Recommended action, if any: Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done.
Perhaps we could look at improving the process for future requests? Perhaps some actions do not even need our formal consent?
Where consent is required of Councillors, even entirely routine matters need at least two working days, particularly given the likelihood that some of us often take long-haul flights.
Nigel
On 05/04/16 08:59, Stephen Deerhake wrote:
This has my approval, but going forward I think it is unreasonable of ICANN Staff to put a Triage request to Council wth a 24hr turn-around time:
*Date of submission to Council:* 5 April 2016
*Deadline Council decision: *6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC
This is really unrealistic. Who is running the show here?
Best Regards,
/Stephen
*From:*owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Joke Braeken *Sent:* Tuesday, April 05, 2016 3:24 AM *To:* ccnso-council@icann.org *Subject:* [ccnso-council] Triage recommendation 09-2016, Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2
Dear Councillors,
Please find below the proposed triage recommendation 09-2016. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of 6 April, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed recommendation. Thank you.
*Topic: *09-2016 - Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2
*Originator: *ICANN, CCWG Accountability
*Summary of request:* With the completion of the Work Stream 1 report and delivery to NTIA in March 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-10-en>, work is beginning on the implementation of the Work Stream 1 recommendations, followed by the development of a Work Stream 2 report. The CCWG-Accountability is open to anyone who wishes to join, and the group welcomes all interested stakeholders to join in this next phase.
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en
*Date received: *29 March 2016
*Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: *The next meeting of the CCWG-Accountability will take place on Tuesday, 5 April from 19:00-21:00 UTC to review draft Bylaw language as a part of implementation of Work Stream 1. The group anticipates finalizing discussions on the draft Bylaws in mid-April. After these discussions are completed, the group will focus on the inventory of Work Stream 2 items.
*Recommended action, if any:* Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done.
*Expertise needed, if any:* policy, legal, strategic, operation, managerial
*Date of submission to Triage Committee:* 30 March 2016
*Recommendation received by Triage Committee:* 01 April 2016, 23:59 UTC
*Date of submission to Council:* 5 April 2016
*Deadline Council decision: *6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC
*Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: *middle
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
My point is that for some issues, we don't need to give consent.
Well... Who will decide if we need or need not a consent from the Council? And who will "supervise the supervisors"? What if one day the Council realises that it has not been consulted on a matter on which it definitely would have liked to be consulted, if you know what I mean. That said, I agree about micromanagement. If you can propose a clear procedure to avoid that, it would be wonderful! Regards, ]{atrina
Dear Stephen, All, Thanks for your input. When items items are brought to the attention of the Triage Committee, the committee members have 2 days to respond. According to the ccNSO Council Triage Committee Charter (http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/triage/charter-triage-30mar16-en.pdf ), the Secretariat should allow the Councillors to have two (working) days to decide on the recommendation of the Triage Committee. This is also included in a graphical representation of the Triage Process, published here: Prioritisation Model followed by the Triage Group<http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/triage/prioritisation-09sep14-en.pdf> My apologies, the timeframe between Tuesday 5 April 2016 at 07:24 UTC and Wednesday 6 April 23:59 UTC indeed does not correspond to 2 full working days. I will make sure to allow for sufficient time at the next occasion, respecting what has been stipulated in the ccNSO Council Triage Committee Charter. Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org From: Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as<mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> Organization: AS Domain Registry Reply-To: "sdeerhake@nic.as<mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>" <sdeerhake@nic.as<mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> Date: Tuesday 5 April 2016 at 09:59 To: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>>, "ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Triage recommendation 09-2016, Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2 This has my approval, but going forward I think it is unreasonable of ICANN Staff to put a Triage request to Council wth a 24hr turn-around time: Date of submission to Council: 5 April 2016 Deadline Council decision: 6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC This is really unrealistic. Who is running the show here? Best Regards, /Stephen From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joke Braeken Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 3:24 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Triage recommendation 09-2016, Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2 Dear Councillors, Please find below the proposed triage recommendation 09-2016. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of 6 April, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed recommendation. Thank you. Topic: 09-2016 - Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2 Originator: ICANN, CCWG Accountability Summary of request: With the completion of the Work Stream 1 report and delivery to NTIA in March 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-10-en>, work is beginning on the implementation of the Work Stream 1 recommendations, followed by the development of a Work Stream 2 report. The CCWG-Accountability is open to anyone who wishes to join, and the group welcomes all interested stakeholders to join in this next phase. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en Date received: 29 March 2016 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: The next meeting of the CCWG-Accountability will take place on Tuesday, 5 April from 19:00-21:00 UTC to review draft Bylaw language as a part of implementation of Work Stream 1. The group anticipates finalizing discussions on the draft Bylaws in mid-April. After these discussions are completed, the group will focus on the inventory of Work Stream 2 items. Recommended action, if any: Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done. Expertise needed, if any: policy, legal, strategic, operation, managerial Date of submission to Triage Committee: 30 March 2016 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 01 April 2016, 23:59 UTC Date of submission to Council: 5 April 2016 Deadline Council decision: 6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: middle Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org
Two days is sufficient. Thank you. Best, /Stephen From: Joke Braeken [mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 11:57 AM To: sdeerhake@nic.as; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: Triage recommendation 09-2016, Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2 Dear Stephen, All, Thanks for your input. When items items are brought to the attention of the Triage Committee, the committee members have 2 days to respond. According to the ccNSO Council Triage Committee Charter ( <http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/triage/charter-triage-30mar16-en.pdf> http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/triage/charter-triage-30mar16-en.pdf ), the Secretariat should allow the Councillors to have two (working) days to decide on the recommendation of the Triage Committee. This is also included in a graphical representation of the Triage Process, published here: <http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/triage/prioritisation-09sep14-en.pdf> Prioritisation Model followed by the Triage Group My apologies, the timeframe between Tuesday 5 April 2016 at 07:24 UTC and Wednesday 6 April 23:59 UTC indeed does not correspond to 2 full working days. I will make sure to allow for sufficient time at the next occasion, respecting what has been stipulated in the ccNSO Council Triage Committee Charter. Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: <https://twitter.com/ccNSO> https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/> https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org From: Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> > Organization: AS Domain Registry Reply-To: "sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> " <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> > Date: Tuesday 5 April 2016 at 09:59 To: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> >, "ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> " <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> > Subject: RE: Triage recommendation 09-2016, Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2 This has my approval, but going forward I think it is unreasonable of ICANN Staff to put a Triage request to Council wth a 24hr turn-around time: Date of submission to Council: 5 April 2016 Deadline Council decision: 6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC This is really unrealistic. Who is running the show here? Best Regards, /Stephen From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joke Braeken Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 3:24 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Triage recommendation 09-2016, Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2 Dear Councillors, Please find below the proposed triage recommendation 09-2016. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of 6 April, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed recommendation. Thank you. Topic: 09-2016 - Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2 Originator: ICANN, CCWG Accountability Summary of request: With the completion of the Work Stream 1 report and delivery to NTIA in March 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-10-en>, work is beginning on the implementation of the Work Stream 1 recommendations, followed by the development of a Work Stream 2 report. The CCWG-Accountability is open to anyone who wishes to join, and the group welcomes all interested stakeholders to join in this next phase. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en Date received: 29 March 2016 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: The next meeting of the CCWG-Accountability will take place on Tuesday, 5 April from 19:00-21:00 UTC to review draft Bylaw language as a part of implementation of Work Stream 1. The group anticipates finalizing discussions on the draft Bylaws in mid-April. After these discussions are completed, the group will focus on the inventory of Work Stream 2 items. Recommended action, if any: Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done. Expertise needed, if any: policy, legal, strategic, operation, managerial Date of submission to Triage Committee: 30 March 2016 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 01 April 2016, 23:59 UTC Date of submission to Council: 5 April 2016 Deadline Council decision: 6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: middle Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: <https://twitter.com/ccNSO> https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/> https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org
no objection for this On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 07:24:23 +0000 Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
Please find below the proposed triage recommendation 09-2016. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of 6 April, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed recommendation. Thank you.
Topic: 09-2016 - Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2 Originator: ICANN, CCWG Accountability Summary of request: With the completion of the Work Stream 1 report and delivery to NTIA in March 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-10-en>, work is beginning on the implementation of the Work Stream 1 recommendations, followed by the development of a Work Stream 2 report. The CCWG-Accountability is open to anyone who wishes to join, and the group welcomes all interested stakeholders to join in this next phase. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en Date received: 29 March 2016 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: The next meeting of the CCWG-Accountability will take place on Tuesday, 5 April from 19:00-21:00 UTC to review draft Bylaw language as a part of implementation of Work Stream 1. The group anticipates finalizing discussions on the draft Bylaws in mid-April. After these discussions are completed, the group will focus on the inventory of Work Stream 2 items. Recommended action, if any: Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done. Expertise needed, if any: policy, legal, strategic, operation, managerial Date of submission to Triage Committee: 30 March 2016 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 01 April 2016, 23:59 UTC Date of submission to Council: 5 April 2016 Deadline Council decision: 6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: middle
Best regards,
Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org
I agree M Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM. Legal and Business Manager NIC Chile - Faculty of Physical and Mathematical Sciences University of Chile www.nic.cl Tel: +56229407734 El 05-04-16 a las 4:24 a.m., Joke Braeken escribió:
Dear Councillors,
Please find below the proposed triage recommendation 09-2016. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of 6 April, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed recommendation. Thank you.
*Topic: *09-2016 - Call for Volunteers: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Implementation and Work Stream 2 *Originator: *ICANN, CCWG Accountability *Summary of request:* With the completion of the Work Stream 1 report and delivery to NTIA in March 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-10-en>, work is beginning on the implementation of the Work Stream 1 recommendations, followed by the development of a Work Stream 2 report. The CCWG-Accountability is open to anyone who wishes to join, and the group welcomes all interested stakeholders to join in this next phase. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en *Date received: *29 March 2016 *Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: *The next meeting of the CCWG-Accountability will take place on Tuesday, 5 April from 19:00-21:00 UTC to review draft Bylaw language as a part of implementation of Work Stream 1. The group anticipates finalizing discussions on the draft Bylaws in mid-April. After these discussions are completed, the group will focus on the inventory of Work Stream 2 items. *Recommended action, if any:* Distribute the call for volunteers via the e-mail lists and twitter. Done. *Expertise needed, if any:* policy, legal, strategic, operation, managerial *Date of submission to Triage Committee:* 30 March 2016 *Recommendation received by Triage Committee:* 01 April 2016, 23:59 UTC *Date of submission to Council:* 5 April 2016
*Deadline Council decision: *6 April 2016, 23:59 UTC
*Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: *middle
Best regards,
Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org
participants (6)
-
HiroHOTTA -
Joke Braeken -
Katrina Sataki -
Margarita Valdes -
Nigel Roberts -
Stephen Deerhake