I think this is fine. Dan From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 7:04 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations hi all, i agree Maria. i had a go at adding another paragraph to our response to Rec #10.3 and have attached the revised draft. but to save you time, here’s the language i inserted "The ATRT2 report documents how a very small group of dedicated volunteers carry an extraordinary proportion of the working-group load and correctly identifies this as a major concern. We note that simply increasing the pool of people aware of and in some way engaged with ICANN should not be viewed as the goal. Ultimately what is needed is a larger and more diverse group of active and effective participants in PDP working groups. Although outreach is an important part of the effort and crucial for bringing newcomers to ICANN, the path to this goal should not end at simply recruiting a large diverse group of people. Rather, there needs to be a clear and well-supported progression for newcomers to gain the skills, knowledge and experience needed to broaden the ranks of active PDP participants and leaders.” happy to consider revisions. mikey On Feb 21, 2014, at 3:56 AM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Jonathan, I'm happy to support this, and thank you for drafting it. There's one small typo, track changes version attached. It's in para 1, page 3. I'd have liked if we tackled head-on the issue of the narrowness of some PDP WGs' participation, which the ATRT2 report provided some pretty convincing numbers on. But as I haven't gone to the trouble of actually drafting anything on it, I can't complain. All the best, Maria On 21 February 2014 09:15, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi, As a member of the ATRT2, I do not believe it my job to comment on our report. I think the GNSO response is fine as far as it goes and I am pleased that at least something is being submitted - though I must admit I am less than enthused about responses that essentially say "we are already doing that". I might have wished for it to be more supportive of other aspects of the report, but the response is what it is. avri On 21-Feb-14 09:43, Jonathan Robinson wrote: *_PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 8 HOURS_* *From:*Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>] *Sent:* 20 February 2014 09:38 *To:* council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* RE: Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations All, The deadline for submission of public comment on the ends approximately 36 hours from now. I am OK to submit a letter in substantially the same for as that distributed to you on 14 Feb (see below) and re-attached to this letter. BUT I need your support to do so. Accordingly, even if you simply provide support without any comment on the content, that will be helpful. *_PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 24 HOURS_* Thank-you. Jonathan *From:*Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>] *Sent:* 14 February 2014 17:21 *To:* council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject:* Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations *Importance:* High All, If you are not already, please be aware of the following: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-09jan14-en... The opportunity to provide comments _ends one week from today 23h59 UTC on 21 Feb 2014_. The ATRT2 interacted with many in the community during the course of its work, including directly with the GNSO Council which was certainly appreciated. We now have an opportunity to comment on the final report. If we do intend to comment, my opinion is that we should at least submit an indication of intent, if not the primary comment, in the initial comment period and not wait for the reply period. Given the tight time frame, I have taken the unusual step of drafting a council response for your consideration. The ATRT2 deals with some critical areas of GNSO work and function and so it seems to me that we should respond to the call for comments, specifically in so far as the report deals with GNSO Policy and directly related areas. I am aware that some of you were on the ATRT2 and others actively worked on Council interaction with the ATRT2. Therefore, you may well have strong views on the subject matter. I look forward to your input and any suggestions. Thanks, Jonathan <ATRT2 - Draft Council Input (14 February 2014).doc> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)