Hi, I have a few comments on the Rules of Engagement.

Principles of Operation

3. Members are expected to communicate the views of the communities that have selected them to the IFRT, but also communicate back the information and deliberations from the IFRT to their respective communities. : : Review Team Members

4. Actively engage with relevant stakeholder groups within the ICANN community. Individual review team members are encouraged to report back to their nominating entity on the progress of the review team.

The first three are editorial issues: A. The way we operate at SSAC, I am appointed by SSAC. I also happen to be a member of SSAC, but SSAC can in theory appoint non-members to groups like these. After being appointed, SSAC suppose I will work together in the group of IFRT and that we together have the competence needed to do a good job, and deliver the correct response. B. The bullets above are slightly different. Yes, I intend to communicate with SSAC that appointed me, but of course also with other "relevant stakeholder groups" -- for example if so instructed by the IFRT or the chair. C. I will of course communicate back to IFRT whatever I hear when communicating with "the relevant team", and specifically the team that have appointed me (SSAC). The most important thing: D. Even if I am bringing back feedback from SSAC, SSAC do have a specific consensus based process for making statements. Statements for example in the form of SSAC documents. This implies that even if I am communicating and tries to bring data back to IFRT, if IFRT require formal response from SSAC that must be formally requested from me, and I will launch such a process within SSAC. It is also the case that regardless of what work I do with IFRT, SSAC always see itself be able to if needed initiate a process and send formal comments. For example during an ICANN review process which we in IFRT might launch on our findings. Or to say it differently: regardless of what I do, SSAC might still (also) say something if needed. None of these things above I find requires changes in the procedures, as I think/feel we talk about interpretations but I leave it to our chair to decide whether my interpretation above is ok, and if we can proceed without any further discussions. I think so. Patrik

On 17 Dec 2019, at 16:10, Frederico A C Neves <fneves@registro.br> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:10:30AM +0100, Patrik Fältström via IFRT wrote:

...

Hi, I have a few comments on the Rules of Engagement.

...

Principles of Operation

3. Members are expected to communicate the views of the communities that have selected them to the IFRT, but also communicate back the information and deliberations from the IFRT to their respective communities. : ... The most important thing:

D. Even if I am bringing back feedback from SSAC, SSAC do have a specific consensus based process for making statements. Statements for example in the form of SSAC documents. This implies that even if I am communicating and tries to bring data back to IFRT, if IFRT require formal response from SSAC that must be formally requested from me, and I will launch such a process within SSAC. It is also the case that regardless of what work I do with IFRT, SSAC always see itself be able to if needed initiate a process and send formal comments. For example during an ICANN review process which we in IFRT might launch on our findings. Or to say it differently: regardless of what I do, SSAC might still (also) say something if needed.

I understand the formal procedures for positioning of well established bodies at ICANN but the principle we are listing are an ethical guidance for IFRT members. They definitely don't impose or preclude the other methods of input from other bodies.

Btw, SSAC have this discussion often as many groups do have the view that an appointed person (like me) can FORMALLY speak on behalf of the group. But by ssac appointed people can not do so.

...

None of these things above I find requires changes in the procedures, as I think/feel we talk about interpretations but I leave it to our chair to decide whether my interpretation above is ok, and if we can proceed without any further discussions.

I think so.

Your are being very specific and I agree with your view. I guess the reasoning for principle Nº 3 is to have an available hook to defend against members of review committees defending, lets conjecture for the sake of the argument, private matters and not the ones of the communities they represent.

Good! Patrik

...

Patrik

Fred