Consensus Call for sending Rev 1.5 to the full meeting for a first reading.
Hi, Re: Update after the Staff Accountability Mtg 27 of 13 September 2017 and consensus call for sending Rev 1.5 to the full meeting for a first reading. During the meeting we worked through the comments and changes which had been pending from Mtg 26. In all but one case, we reached consensus on the document. The one instance of open discussion concerns recommendation 4a ** 1. * ICANN Organization should work with the community to: * * 1. Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service. * The original recommendations had been for a service level agreements (SLA). As there had been strong reaction on SLAs because of their legal nature and the difficulty involved in negotiating such SLAs, the recommendation was changed to guidelines. In response, there was consensus, though not unanimity, for recommending guidelines instead of agreements. During the consensus call, there was one request that we wait until there had been time for a group member to check with the groups in the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO, on whose behalf the original recommendation had been made. It was argued that guidelines were an unreliable mechanism and that it would be better to develop SLAs. Because of the tight schedule and the intermittent nature of sub-team member attendance, it was recommended by others that we send the sub-team consensus document on to the full meeting leaving the issue of 4a open for discussion in the full meeting. As the number of participants in the meeting was small, the compromise accepted by the group was to check the consensus with the members of the group who had not been in attendance (most of you). For that reason I am doing this online consensus call. The deadline for sending documents for consideration to the next full meeting (27 Sept) is 20 September (Bernie, please correct me if I have this wrong). This consensus call is scheduled to end 19 September at 1200 UTC. Note, there is only one other full meeting between now and the Abu Dhabi meeting on 18 Oct. *Consensus Question: is there consensus in the sub-team for sending the Rev 1.5 of the document* *<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPo...> (pdf attached)* *to the full meeting, with the request that they also determine whether we submit 4a with a recommendation for service level guidelines or Service Level Agreements.* Note: the alternative, if this consensus call fails, is that the agenda of the next Staff Accountability meeting on 28 September 13UTC to focus on this subject and that we submit in time for the last full meeting for Abu Dhabi. This would be very last minute and would give the sub-team limited time for resolving any pending issues that may emerge in the first reading before the Abu Dhabi meeting. If the consensus call succeeds, we will dedicate the September 28 meeting to responding to issues from the reading in the full meeting. Additionally, during the meeting several comments were made about the format of the document. I have done some cleanup and would appreciate that those of who do read the report let me know of any format &c. problems you might see, so that I can fix them. thank you avri
Avri, Just to be certain there is no doubt: - You are correct the next plenary is 27 September 1300 UTC and documents are due, as usual, 20 September 23:59 UTC to be considered at that meeting. - The next plenary is scheduled for 18 October 1900 UTC, and documents are due 11 October 23:59 UTC to be considered at that meeting. - The plenary after that is the face to face meeting in Abu Dhabi on 27 October all day local time. - The regular plenary following the face to face is scheduled for 29 November, right after American Thanksgiving. What is probably important to note is that if a first reading of recommendations cannot be successfully completed at the 18 October plenary for any sub-group there is no time, per the published schedule we have been presenting since May, for two readings and a public consultation before producing the integrated final WS2 report which means these recommendations could not be part of the WS2 recommendations (reminder that it was confirmed at the last plenary that recommendations for the WS2 final report have to have gone to public consultation at least once or they are not eligible for consideration in the final report). The 11 October date is also the most optimistic scenario in that it assumes the plenary will accept the sub-group recommendations for a first reading on 18 October and will not ask for any significant edits even if it does approve it for a first reading. Any significant edits requested by the plenary would need to be published prior to the 27 October face to face which would leave any sub-group little time to undertake these given the time between those two meetings also includes travel to Abu Dhabi for many participants.Also if a sub-group needs to consider that if their document cannot achieve a confirmed first reading at the October plenary that their recommendations will not make into the final report due to timing considerations. As such all sub-group recommendations have to be in for a first reading October 11 23:59 UTC latest. Hoping this is clear. Happy to take any questions. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:32 AM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
Re: Update after the Staff Accountability Mtg 27 of 13 September 2017 and consensus call for sending Rev 1.5 to the full meeting for a first reading.
During the meeting we worked through the comments and changes which had been pending from Mtg 26. In all but one case, we reached consensus on the document.
The one instance of open discussion concerns recommendation 4a
**
1. *
ICANN Organization should work with the community to:
*
*
1.
Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service.
*
The original recommendations had been for a service level agreements (SLA). As there had been strong reaction on SLAs because of their legal nature and the difficulty involved in negotiating such SLAs, the recommendation was changed to guidelines. In response, there was consensus, though not unanimity, for recommending guidelines instead of agreements.
During the consensus call, there was one request that we wait until there had been time for a group member to check with the groups in the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO, on whose behalf the original recommendation had been made. It was argued that guidelines were an unreliable mechanism and that it would be better to develop SLAs.
Because of the tight schedule and the intermittent nature of sub-team member attendance, it was recommended by others that we send the sub-team consensus document on to the full meeting leaving the issue of 4a open for discussion in the full meeting.
As the number of participants in the meeting was small, the compromise accepted by the group was to check the consensus with the members of the group who had not been in attendance (most of you). For that reason I am doing this online consensus call.
The deadline for sending documents for consideration to the next full meeting (27 Sept) is 20 September (Bernie, please correct me if I have this wrong). This consensus call is scheduled to end 19 September at 1200 UTC. Note, there is only one other full meeting between now and the Abu Dhabi meeting on 18 Oct.
*Consensus Question: is there consensus in the sub-team for sending the Rev 1.5 of the document*
*<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_ rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit?usp=sharing> (pdf attached)*
*to the full meeting, with the request that they also determine whether we submit 4a with a recommendation for service level guidelines or Service Level Agreements.*
Note: the alternative, if this consensus call fails, is that the agenda of the next Staff Accountability meeting on 28 September 13UTC to focus on this subject and that we submit in time for the last full meeting for Abu Dhabi. This would be very last minute and would give the sub-team limited time for resolving any pending issues that may emerge in the first reading before the Abu Dhabi meeting. If the consensus call succeeds, we will dedicate the September 28 meeting to responding to issues from the reading in the full meeting.
Additionally, during the meeting several comments were made about the format of the document. I have done some cleanup and would appreciate that those of who do read the report let me know of any format &c. problems you might see, so that I can fix them.
thank you
avri
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
Hi, Thanks. avri On 14-Sep-17 11:27, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
Avri,
Just to be certain there is no doubt:
* You are correct the next plenary is 27 September 1300 UTC and documents are due, as usual, 20 September 23:59 UTC to be considered at that meeting. * The next plenary is scheduled for 18 October 1900 UTC, and documents are due 11 October 23:59 UTC to be considered at that meeting. * The plenary after that is the face to face meeting in Abu Dhabi on 27 October all day local time. * The regular plenary following the face to face is scheduled for 29 November, right after American Thanksgiving.
What is probably important to note is that if a first reading of recommendations cannot be successfully completed at the 18 October plenary for any sub-group there is no time, per the published schedule we have been presenting since May, for two readings and a public consultation before producing the integrated final WS2 report which means these recommendations could not be part of the WS2 recommendations (reminder that it was confirmed at the last plenary that recommendations for the WS2 final report have to have gone to public consultation at least once or they are not eligible for consideration in the final report).
The 11 October date is also the most optimistic scenario in that it assumes the plenary will accept the sub-group recommendations for a first reading on 18 October and will not ask for any significant edits even if it does approve it for a first reading. Any significant edits requested by the plenary would need to be published prior to the 27 October face to face which would leave any sub-group little time to undertake these given the time between those two meetings also includes travel to Abu Dhabi for many participants.Also if a sub-group needs to consider that if their document cannot achieve a confirmed first reading at the October plenary that their recommendations will not make into the final report due to timing considerations.
As such all sub-group recommendations have to be in for a first reading October 11 23:59 UTC latest.
Hoping this is clear.
Happy to take any questions.
Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:32 AM, avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Re: Update after the Staff Accountability Mtg 27 of 13 September 2017 and consensus call for sending Rev 1.5 to the full meeting for a first reading.
During the meeting we worked through the comments and changes which had been pending from Mtg 26. In all but one case, we reached consensus on the document.
The one instance of open discussion concerns recommendation 4a
**
1. *
ICANN Organization should work with the community to:
*
*
1.
Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service.
*
The original recommendations had been for a service level agreements (SLA). As there had been strong reaction on SLAs because of their legal nature and the difficulty involved in negotiating such SLAs, the recommendation was changed to guidelines. In response, there was consensus, though not unanimity, for recommending guidelines instead of agreements.
During the consensus call, there was one request that we wait until there had been time for a group member to check with the groups in the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO, on whose behalf the original recommendation had been made. It was argued that guidelines were an unreliable mechanism and that it would be better to develop SLAs.
Because of the tight schedule and the intermittent nature of sub-team member attendance, it was recommended by others that we send the sub-team consensus document on to the full meeting leaving the issue of 4a open for discussion in the full meeting.
As the number of participants in the meeting was small, the compromise accepted by the group was to check the consensus with the members of the group who had not been in attendance (most of you). For that reason I am doing this online consensus call.
The deadline for sending documents for consideration to the next full meeting (27 Sept) is 20 September (Bernie, please correct me if I have this wrong). This consensus call is scheduled to end 19 September at 1200 UTC. Note, there is only one other full meeting between now and the Abu Dhabi meeting on 18 Oct.
*Consensus Question: is there consensus in the sub-team for sending the Rev 1.5 of the document*
*<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPo... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit?usp=sharing>> (pdf attached)*
*to the full meeting, with the request that they also determine whether we submit 4a with a recommendation for service level guidelines or Service Level Agreements.*
Note: the alternative, if this consensus call fails, is that the agenda of the next Staff Accountability meeting on 28 September 13UTC to focus on this subject and that we submit in time for the last full meeting for Abu Dhabi. This would be very last minute and would give the sub-team limited time for resolving any pending issues that may emerge in the first reading before the Abu Dhabi meeting. If the consensus call succeeds, we will dedicate the September 28 meeting to responding to issues from the reading in the full meeting.
Additionally, during the meeting several comments were made about the format of the document. I have done some cleanup and would appreciate that those of who do read the report let me know of any format &c. problems you might see, so that I can fix them.
thank you
avri
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
participants (2)
-
avri doria -
Bernard Turcotte