For Your Information
To: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: MSSI Support for SSR2-RT Cc: Khaled Koubaa <Khaled.koubaa@board.icann.org>, SOAC Chairs <soac-chairs@icann.org>, Board SSR2 Caucus <board-caucus-ssr2@icann.org>
Dear Theresa,
This letter is being sent on behalf of the SO/AC Chairs.
Based on discussions with the SSR2 Review Team (RT) at ICANN60, a confidential survey conducted by the SO/AC Chairs of RT members, and one-on-one discussions between RT members and their respective SO/AC leaders, our understanding is that there are two areas where the RT believes that they could benefit from enhanced MSSI support.
1. Better records of RT meetings, both face-to-face and teleconferences. Currently MSSI support provides a record of decisions made by the RT and Action Items (for both RT members and MSSI staff). In addition to these current efforts, the Review Team requests that high-level notes of discussions be captured during the meetings, similar to the notes that are taken by staff for many CCWG meeting discussions as well as for GNSO PDPs, and comparable to the records of Board discussions that often form a part of Board minutes. The SO/AC Chairs consider that this request is reasonable.
2. Improved response to RT requests. RT members have expressed a concern that ICANN (via MSSI staff) has been slow in providing answers to questions and further information. Clearly this is a subjective issue, both in regard to how quickly responses should be provided and to what extent requests are reasonable and able to be addressed within the expected response time. Nevertheless, as it has been identified as a concern of RT members and is potentially hindering the RT's effectiveness, we believe that this should be addressed. The SO/AC Chairs suggest the following:
a) For all requests for information (which are already logged as MSSI Action Items), MSSI to the extent practical should estimate expected response time and track response time.
b) When a response cannot meet expectations, the RT should be notified with an amended expectation and explanation for the extended time needed.
c) If the RT or RT leadership believes that the response or response time in any given instance is unsatisfactory, this should be raised with MSSI staff.
d) If the question cannot be responded to or requires clarification, or if ICANN org for some other reasons does not feel the request is appropriate, MSSI must flag this as a "critical issue" to be addressed. Such "critical issues" may also be raised by RT leadership, RT members, MSSI or other ICANN staff in the event of a disagreement on resources or information availability. To the extent possible, a rationale should be clearly expressed to enable the RT to understand the situation.
e) Any such "critical issue" should be explicitly noted as an Action Item. A small group consisting of the Board Liaison to the RT, one member of MSSI staff and one from the RT leadership (or one that the RT leadership appoints) will work to either ensure that adequate resources are made available or RT expectations are reset at a more appropriate level or whatever other action is appropriate to allow the issue be resolved. Immediately when a "critical issue" is raised, the OEC and SO/AC Chairs should be notified, and both OEC and SO/AC Chairs should, if at least one of the three persons in the subgroup so requests, help by having a representative participate in the discussions.
f) the process above should be considered for inclusion in the Operating Standards.
We would appreciate your thoughts on these proposals.
Sent on behalf of:
Alan Greenberg, Chair, ALAC Paul Wilson, Chair, ASO Katrina Sataki, Chair, ccNSO Manal Ismail, Chair, GAC Heather Forrest, Chair, GNSO Tripti Sinha, Co-Chair, RSSAC Brad Verd, Co-Chair, RSSAC Rod Rasmussen, Chair, SSAC