Noting firstly that I was a respondent to the original Public Comment on this matter, I am pleased to provide this brief follow up to the subsequent paper that seeks to "... confirm whether the responses received to date are broadly representative of the multistakeholder community views, and to harmonize divergence of opinions expressed by the responders. "

Secondly as previously noted in my earlier submission I have a direct interest in ATRT3 and therefore the short term options proposed, as I am one of the ALAC nominees already proposed to serve in the Review Team (RT).

So my brief responses to some points and proposals raised in the paper are as follows:-

I concur with and am available to comply with the proposed date for the commencement of the substantive work of the RT January 2019.
I recognise the bylaw limitation and requirements for a 12-month duration of the Review.
Following from this, I would also then note that I am supportive of the proposed next steps and timeline as proposed in the paper.
Importantly I most certainly agree with the proposal in the paper that ATRT3 consider "... a discussion on how to streamline Specific Reviews to make them more effective and impactful. ..." although I would be personally pushing that it was more than "considered" by the RT, as I believe that it is important that as stated in the paper "... ATRT3 discussions, guidance and potentially recommendations would [I would prefer should] inform next steps."
If in the development of its own Scope ATRT3 agrees that the streamlining of Specific Reviews is to be included, then I also note that the proposed next steps and timeline in the paper would be useful for ATRT to discuss and consider.
The development of "...a shared understanding of the purpose of Organizational Reviews and their expected outcomes - within the ICANN community, Board and ICANN organization." as proposed in the paper as well as the aim to "...Identify potential options to accomplish the agreed upon purpose and expectations, with an eye toward improved efficiency and effectiveness." has my support and I trust will, within the timeline proposed, become a key objective of the OEC.
I also note that the proposed process for the development of Operating Standards for Specific Reviews is well underway with community webinars already held and a public session planned for ICANN 63.

Finally with regards to Organisational Reviews and the existing timelines for the cycling thereof, as I believe I have previously stated I would propose that no new Organisational Reviews be conducted that have not already begun, so the next cycle starting from the GNSO, should be postponed until the review and any improvements to the "...shared understanding of... ... ... " has been fully established.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide input.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)

about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr