- comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18@icann.org

[Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] Clarification sought on RrSG public comment submission
by Lars Hoffmann Aug. 8, 2018

Aug. 8, 2018

Dear Graeme, I hope this finds you well. As we are summarizing the responses to the public comment on Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews, we noticed that the RrSG suggested<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timelin…> with regard to ATRT3: “as a mechanism to ensure the ATRT3 Review proceeds in a timely (and therefore budget friendly) manner, the RrSG would further suggest that it be led by experts rather than the whole community.” We interpret this as a suggestion to have the team chaired by a professional facilitator; did we understand that correctly? We have cc-ed the public comment archive to make sure your response will become part of the public comment record. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars

2 1

[Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] Ratified: Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 6, 2018

Aug. 6, 2018

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC Statement on the Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Sho…>. Content of the statement remains unchanged. Ratification information has been included on the cover page. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Re: [Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] Short term options
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 1, 2018

Aug. 1, 2018

Well, that is extremely annoying as I had to reproduce the text in the blasted form several times already when it failed to save or returned me to a blank form when I moved back from the email link within the form =>NOT happy I can tell you as I do actually have other work to do occasionally ;-) I have copied the email address from the PC to this reply and I trust that will act as a suitable (re)lodgement. SO rather than repeat actions that clearly are failing me please find attached my local copy of the material I had filled in on the form, that was created in my G Drive, as a result of my irritation with the form failing to save as PDF correctly earlier on. *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 01:40, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> wrote: > Hi Cheryl, > > > > I hope all is well. I was just informed that your public comment > submission for the short terms options did not have any content. Presumably > you sent the wrong file. When you have a moment would you re-submit your > short term submission, please? Just to assure you, the long term response > looks good. > > > > Very best. > > Lars > >

1 0

[Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] My personal response to this PC
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 1, 2018

Aug. 1, 2018

*Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>

1 0

[Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] NCSG Comments
by Rafik Dammak July 31, 2018

July 31, 2018

Hi, Please find attached NCSG comment. Best Regards, Rafik Dammak

1 0

[Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] RySG Comments on the Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews
by Demetriou, Samantha July 31, 2018

July 31, 2018

On behalf of the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), please find attached our input on the Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews. In the interest of time, we did not conduct a vote on these comments. We did discuss them on our mailing list and during a biweekly conference call, and no member opposed their submission. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Best, Samantha Demetriou RySG Vice Chair, Administration

1 0

[Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] RrSG response to Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews
by Zoe Bonython July 31, 2018

July 31, 2018

Hello, On behalf of the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG), I would like to submit the attached response to the Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews. Kind regards, Zoe Bonython RrSG Secretariat

1 0

[Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] Pending Ratification: Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews
by Evin Erdogdu July 31, 2018

July 31, 2018

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC Statement on the Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Sho…>. In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the Statement be transmitted to the ICANN public comment process with a note that the Statement is pending ALAC ratification. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Short-Term Options to Adjust Timeline for ATRT3
by Steve DelBianco July 31, 2018

July 31, 2018

Attached is the comment of the ICANN Business Constituency (BC) regarding Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews. As indicated in the attached form, the BC favors the option B, to “Limit review to implementation of prior ATRT recommendations.” And as noted at the end of the attached form: The Business Constituency (BC) has a significant preference for Option B. We indicated Option C as our 3rd choice on the form above, but the BC does not support that option. We note that these potential adjustments for ATRT3 are in response to unique circumstances attributable to the simultaneous development efforts for Work Stream 2 accountability and transparency measures. Therefore, this process of ICANN adjusting the scope and/or timing of a community-driven Specific Review is a unique response that should not create any precedent for other Specific Reviews. This comment was approved in accord with the BC Charter. Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

[Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] US Comments
by Heineman, Ashley July 31, 2018

July 31, 2018

Please find attached comments from the United States on the Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews. Thanks, Ashley Heineman US GAC Representative

1 0

[Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] SSAC Comments on Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews
by Andrew McConachie July 24, 2018

July 24, 2018

Attached please find the SSAC’s public comment on Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews. This document has also been published as SSAC Correspondence SSAC2018-18. Best Regards, Andrew McConachie ICANN Policy Development Support Staff in Support of the SSAC

1 0

[Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] Fwd: [Ext] Enquiry for response to Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews
by Zoe Bonython June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Hello, On behalf of the RrSG, I requested some additional information on the budget in relation to the Short Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews. As noted by Larisa below, the response may be useful for other ICANN Community members. Kind regards, Zoe Bonython RrSG Secretariat Begin forwarded message: > From: "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Ext] Enquiry for response to Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews > Date: 12 June 2018 21:31:04 BST > To: Zoe Bonython <secretariat(a)icannregistrars.org> > Cc: Charla Shambley <charla.shambley(a)icann.org> > > Hello Zoe, > > Thank you for your email requesting further details on the FY19 ATRT3 budget and the Reviews budget in general. To make this information accessible to others who may have similar questions, would you please consider having the questions and the response posted to the public comment. If you agree that this would be useful, then you can forward this email exchange to comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18(a)icann.org. > > In response to your question, "How much of budget do the Specific Review teams actually have control over?”, it may be helpful to understand ICANN’s approach to budgets for specific reviews. Review Team budgets developed for specific reviews that were expected to start their work in FY18 consisted of an envelope of approximately $690,000 to cover the work of the review team from start to finish, regardless of the fiscal year - consisting of: > > Travel & Catering: $340,000 > Professional Services – Review Team component: $200,000 > Professional Services – Contractors engaged by ICANN org to support RT work: $150,000 > > This envelope was calculated based on past experience and available information at the time. Travel & Catering assumption was based on 21 Review Team members (the maximum number according to the Bylaws). Once the Review Team is formed, and as they develop their scope of work and work plans, the leadership of the Review Team will then work with ICANN organization to document their specific needs (for face-to-face meetings and professional services). To support the Review Team’s budgetary considerations and decisions, it is typical to have the leadership of the Review Team work with ICANN’s project/operations liaisons and Finance liaisons - to address project planning, cost management, and tracking and reporting. > > As part of ICANN’s commitment to transparency, Fact Sheets are assembled on a quarterly basis and posted on the Specific Review’s wiki pages. The Fact Sheet contains a section for financial resources (Section II) which includes the budget as well as actual expenses and projected committed expenses. For ease of reference, here are links to the Fact Sheet wiki pages: > CCT: https://community.icann.org/display/CCT/Fact+Sheet > RDS-WHOIS2: https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/Fact+Sheet > SSR2: https://community.icann.org/display/SSR/Fact+Sheet > > In response to your question, "How the '$ Savings in FY19' noted in the table on page 8/9 were calculated", please note the savings assumptions for each of the three ATRT3 options, supplemented by more general information (note above) on how specific review budgets are developed and refined: > > ATRT3 Option A (No Change): Since there are no anticipated changes to the workplan or travel assumptions, the FY19 budget will not change. Therefore, no cost savings will be observed during the course of the review. > > ATRT3 Option B (Limit Review to Implementation of Prior Recommendations): assumes a $250,000 cost savings in FY19. This is further explained in footnote 3 on page 8: "Based on adherence to scope limitations and assumption that expert resources will not need to be identified (pursuant to Section 4.6(a)(iv)) because of the limited scope". > > ATRT3 Option C (Commence RT work upon Board action on CCWG-WS2 recommendations): assumes a $320,000 cost savings in FY19. This is further explained in footnote 5 on page 9 that if the work of the Review Team was to start no later than 30 June 2019 and conclude within twelve months as prescribed by the Bylaws, that a limited number of face-to-face meetings would occur in FY19. > > Thank you for your interest in Specific Reviews. The ICANN organization looks forward to your input into the public comment on short-term options to adjust the timeline for Specific Reviews. And of course, please reach out if you need additional information or clarification. > > Regards, > > Larisa > > Larisa B. Gurnick > Vice President > Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives > ICANN > larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org > Skype: larisa.gurnick > 1-310-383-8995 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Zoe Bonython [mailto:secretariat@icannregistrars.org] > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 8:45 AM > To: Larisa B. Gurnick <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Ext] Enquiry for response to Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews > > Hi Larisa, > > To assist with putting together the RrSG’s response to the Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews, I would much appreciate if you could provide details on: > > 1) How the '$ Savings in FY19' noted in the table on page 8/9 were calculated > 2) How much of budget do the Specific Review teams actually have control over > > Thanks in advance! > > Kind regards, > > Zoe Bonython > RrSG Secretariat

1 0

[Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] Sébastien Bachollet comments
by Sebicann Bachollet June 7, 2018

June 7, 2018

1 0

[Comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18] Letter from RDS-WHOIS-RT to Theresa Swinehart
by Alan Greenberg June 5, 2018

June 5, 2018

The attached letter has been sent to Theresa Swinehart, Senior Vice President, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives on behalf of the RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team, with a copy to Khaled Koubaa, Chair of the Board Organizational Effectiveness Committee, Alan Greenberg Chair, RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team

1 0