Changes made in Rev 1.7 - consensus call for submission to 2nd reading
Hi, During today's WS2 plenary meeting, the report passed its first reading with a few comments. The changes can be found in: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPo...> 2 pdf files are attached: one marked up and one clean. _Change made_ - page 3 Roles and Responsibilities point 7. Added two explicit instances of ",as appropriate" - page 5 Recommendation 2 It was commented that point ii, was not a recommendation but an explanation. It was recommended that the explanation be removed. Instead, the recommendation has been be subordinate to one of the recommendation and no longer stands alone as a recommendation. - page 6 Recommendation 3 change 1 Sentence reworked to replace informal with ad-hoc. Not sure this is as correct as informal. But not sure that it makes a difference. - page 6 Recommendation 3 change 2 We were asked to add example conditions of when discussions could be confidential instead of transparent. Since the Transparency subgroup developed answers for the SOAC accountability subgroup to the same issue, the SOAC text was copied to this report. A footnote was added to say that the various example listings should remain consistent once the entire WS2 book was built. - page 6 Recommendation 4a. The consensus was that it should remain service level guideline instead of service level agreements. _Consensus Call for 2nd plenary reading submission _ Until 30 September 2359 UTC __ If anyone has any objections or strong recommendations for ways to change the edits being made in response__to the 1st reading comments please contribute specific changes on the list. If we change the file in a substantive way during this last call based on comments, I will restart the last call for another 48 hours after the change is published. Minor fixes will just be made without restarting the clock. Note: at this point substantive changes to the report or its content are discouraged as they would require another 1st plenary reading and would probably mean that we would not finish in time. __ thanks avri
Avri, Thanks for this prompt update on our document post the CCWG Plenaries successful 1st reading, as you know I comments during the call I was happy with these proposed edits, so am noting here my support for them, and look forward to our report going into a 2nd reading of the Plenary as soon as practical. On Sep 28, 2017 13:30, "avri doria" <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
During today's WS2 plenary meeting, the report passed its first reading with a few comments.
The changes can be found in:
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_ rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit?usp=sharing>
2 pdf files are attached: one marked up and one clean.
_Change made_
- page 3 Roles and Responsibilities point 7.
Added two explicit instances of ",as appropriate"
- page 5 Recommendation 2
It was commented that point ii, was not a recommendation but an explanation. It was recommended that the explanation be removed. Instead, the recommendation has been be subordinate to one of the recommendation and no longer stands alone as a recommendation.
- page 6 Recommendation 3 change 1
Sentence reworked to replace informal with ad-hoc. Not sure this is as correct as informal. But not sure that it makes a difference.
- page 6 Recommendation 3 change 2
We were asked to add example conditions of when discussions could be confidential instead of transparent. Since the Transparency subgroup developed answers for the SOAC accountability subgroup to the same issue, the SOAC text was copied to this report. A footnote was added to say that the various example listings should remain consistent once the entire WS2 book was built.
- page 6 Recommendation 4a.
The consensus was that it should remain service level guideline instead of service level agreements.
_Consensus Call for 2nd plenary reading submission _
Until 30 September 2359 UTC __
If anyone has any objections or strong recommendations for ways to change the edits being made in response__to the 1st reading comments please contribute specific changes on the list. If we change the file in a substantive way during this last call based on comments, I will restart the last call for another 48 hours after the change is published. Minor fixes will just be made without restarting the clock.
Note: at this point substantive changes to the report or its content are discouraged as they would require another 1st plenary reading and would probably mean that we would not finish in time. __
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
I agree with Cheryl's comment in my role as a participant. Good work Avri. Jordan On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 at 4:48 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for this prompt update on our document post the CCWG Plenaries successful 1st reading, as you know I comments during the call I was happy with these proposed edits, so am noting here my support for them, and look forward to our report going into a 2nd reading of the Plenary as soon as practical.
On Sep 28, 2017 13:30, "avri doria" <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
During today's WS2 plenary meeting, the report passed its first reading with a few comments.
The changes can be found in:
< https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPo...
2 pdf files are attached: one marked up and one clean.
_Change made_
- page 3 Roles and Responsibilities point 7.
Added two explicit instances of ",as appropriate"
- page 5 Recommendation 2
It was commented that point ii, was not a recommendation but an explanation. It was recommended that the explanation be removed. Instead, the recommendation has been be subordinate to one of the recommendation and no longer stands alone as a recommendation.
- page 6 Recommendation 3 change 1
Sentence reworked to replace informal with ad-hoc. Not sure this is as correct as informal. But not sure that it makes a difference.
- page 6 Recommendation 3 change 2
We were asked to add example conditions of when discussions could be confidential instead of transparent. Since the Transparency subgroup developed answers for the SOAC accountability subgroup to the same issue, the SOAC text was copied to this report. A footnote was added to say that the various example listings should remain consistent once the entire WS2 book was built.
- page 6 Recommendation 4a.
The consensus was that it should remain service level guideline instead of service level agreements.
_Consensus Call for 2nd plenary reading submission _
Until 30 September 2359 UTC __
If anyone has any objections or strong recommendations for ways to change the edits being made in response__to the 1st reading comments please contribute specific changes on the list. If we change the file in a substantive way during this last call based on comments, I will restart the last call for another 48 hours after the change is published. Minor fixes will just be made without restarting the clock.
Note: at this point substantive changes to the report or its content are discouraged as they would require another 1st plenary reading and would probably mean that we would not finish in time. __
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org 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
-- Jordan Carter | Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Hello, Am sorry for coming late on this, and like to thank all those who contributed to this work and I particularly think these said of recommendations can serve as useful guidelines for other organisations outside ICANN. That said, a section of the 3rd recommendation caught my attention and I quote below, with emphasis on relevant section: "The* panel could review concerns or issues raised* by the community, ombudsman, staff or board that at least two panel members determine require further effort. This panel would *have no powers beyond those of its members* and their ability to cooperate. While this panel should work transparently, it will, *at its discretion*, be able to treat issues that require it, as confidential." 1. It is not clear what the output of such panel will be; I think we could note that such output of the group will serve as recommendation to the Board 2. I think making the "keeping confidential" optional decision of just 4 members of a group raises a little concern. Hence I think it may be good to not make confidentiality optional (where confidentiality is due or clearly stated by the complainant) The 2 points are not redline for me, and am fine should this be late already. However, if there is still opportunity to incorporate this, do kindly consider them. Regards On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 7:30 AM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
During today's WS2 plenary meeting, the report passed its first reading with a few comments.
The changes can be found in:
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_ rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit?usp=sharing>
2 pdf files are attached: one marked up and one clean.
_Change made_
- page 3 Roles and Responsibilities point 7.
Added two explicit instances of ",as appropriate"
- page 5 Recommendation 2
It was commented that point ii, was not a recommendation but an explanation. It was recommended that the explanation be removed. Instead, the recommendation has been be subordinate to one of the recommendation and no longer stands alone as a recommendation.
- page 6 Recommendation 3 change 1
Sentence reworked to replace informal with ad-hoc. Not sure this is as correct as informal. But not sure that it makes a difference.
- page 6 Recommendation 3 change 2
We were asked to add example conditions of when discussions could be confidential instead of transparent. Since the Transparency subgroup developed answers for the SOAC accountability subgroup to the same issue, the SOAC text was copied to this report. A footnote was added to say that the various example listings should remain consistent once the entire WS2 book was built.
- page 6 Recommendation 4a.
The consensus was that it should remain service level guideline instead of service level agreements.
_Consensus Call for 2nd plenary reading submission _
Until 30 September 2359 UTC __
If anyone has any objections or strong recommendations for ways to change the edits being made in response__to the 1st reading comments please contribute specific changes on the list. If we change the file in a substantive way during this last call based on comments, I will restart the last call for another 48 hours after the change is published. Minor fixes will just be made without restarting the clock.
Note: at this point substantive changes to the report or its content are discouraged as they would require another 1st plenary reading and would probably mean that we would not finish in time. __
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Hello, I have gotten some intent clarification from Cheryl about my observation so nevermind ;-) Regards On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Am sorry for coming late on this, and like to thank all those who contributed to this work and I particularly think these said of recommendations can serve as useful guidelines for other organisations outside ICANN.
That said, a section of the 3rd recommendation caught my attention and I quote below, with emphasis on relevant section:
"The* panel could review concerns or issues raised* by the community, ombudsman, staff or board that at least two panel members determine require further effort. This panel would *have no powers beyond those of its members* and their ability to cooperate.
While this panel should work transparently, it will, *at its discretion*, be able to treat issues that require it, as confidential."
1. It is not clear what the output of such panel will be; I think we could note that such output of the group will serve as recommendation to the Board 2. I think making the "keeping confidential" optional decision of just 4 members of a group raises a little concern. Hence I think it may be good to not make confidentiality optional (where confidentiality is due or clearly stated by the complainant)
The 2 points are not redline for me, and am fine should this be late already. However, if there is still opportunity to incorporate this, do kindly consider them.
Regards
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 7:30 AM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
During today's WS2 plenary meeting, the report passed its first reading with a few comments.
The changes can be found in:
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tI aOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit?usp=sharing>
2 pdf files are attached: one marked up and one clean.
_Change made_
- page 3 Roles and Responsibilities point 7.
Added two explicit instances of ",as appropriate"
- page 5 Recommendation 2
It was commented that point ii, was not a recommendation but an explanation. It was recommended that the explanation be removed. Instead, the recommendation has been be subordinate to one of the recommendation and no longer stands alone as a recommendation.
- page 6 Recommendation 3 change 1
Sentence reworked to replace informal with ad-hoc. Not sure this is as correct as informal. But not sure that it makes a difference.
- page 6 Recommendation 3 change 2
We were asked to add example conditions of when discussions could be confidential instead of transparent. Since the Transparency subgroup developed answers for the SOAC accountability subgroup to the same issue, the SOAC text was copied to this report. A footnote was added to say that the various example listings should remain consistent once the entire WS2 book was built.
- page 6 Recommendation 4a.
The consensus was that it should remain service level guideline instead of service level agreements.
_Consensus Call for 2nd plenary reading submission _
Until 30 September 2359 UTC __
If anyone has any objections or strong recommendations for ways to change the edits being made in response__to the 1st reading comments please contribute specific changes on the list. If we change the file in a substantive way during this last call based on comments, I will restart the last call for another 48 hours after the change is published. Minor fixes will just be made without restarting the clock.
Note: at this point substantive changes to the report or its content are discouraged as they would require another 1st plenary reading and would probably mean that we would not finish in time. __
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
participants (4)
-
avri doria -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Jordan Carter -
Seun Ojedeji