<html>
<body>
For discussion and decision at tomorrow's ALAC meeting. <br><br>
This is patterned after the abbreviated for of Review that was proposed
for the WHOIS/RDS Review. I am not as convinced of the overlap as I was
for that review, but at this stage, we have enough ICANN introspection
going on and I support the proposal (despite the implication that I might
be a good RT member!).<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear SO & AC Chairs,
<br><br>
The CCWG-Accountability (CCWG) at its face to face meeting at the ICANN
56 in Helsinki considered the implications of the collision of topics,
and therefore efforts, between ATRT3 and Work Stream 2 (WS2) (please see
Annex 1 for a detailed consideration of this issue).<br><br>
In its discussion of this issue the CCWG considered the following
points:<br>
· Collision of topics
between WS2 and ATRT3 - There is potential for significant overlap
between WS2 topics and the scope of ATRT3 as 6 of the 9 WS2 topics are
accountability and transparency issues ATRT3 could also consider.<br>
· Timing of the two
activities - WS2 began in July 2016 with an objective of completing its
work by the end of 2017. ATRT3, which is expected to take 12 months to
complete, is currently scheduled to begin in January 2017 but could
potentially be delayed until February 2018 under the new Bylaws (which
require ATRT every 5 years versus the AoC requirement for every 3 years).
It would seem inefficient, at best, to have both of these activities
working on the same topics independently, while drawing on the same pool
of community volunteers. At worst, ATRT3 and WS2 groups could issue
recommendations that are conflicting or duplicative.<br><br>
· Implementation of
recommendations – The Bylaws for WS2 give CCWG recommendations greater
weight when it comes to board consideration, relative to recommendations
from an ATRT organized under the AoC.<br><br>
While in Helsinki, the CCWG concluded its preferred approach, as
communicated in our 8-Aug-2016
<a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-et-al-to-icann-board-08aug16-en.pdf">
letter</a> to the Board of ICANN:<br><br>
Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the limited scope of assessing
implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new
recommendations for accountability and transparency. The fourth ATRT
would convene before 2022 and would assess all accountability and
transparency topics and make recommendations<br><br>
The ICANN Board
<a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-sanchez-et-al-24oct16-en.pdf">
replied</a> to the CCWG letter on 24-Oct-2016, saying,<br><br>
It is not up to the Board to dictate the scope of this important
community review. While we share the concerns raised of avoiding
duplication of resources, it is essential that the broader ICANN
community have a voice in determining how the ATRT3 should be scoped in
alignment with the Bylaws. The Board and the ICANN Organization stand
ready to support the community’s direction. <br><br>
Accordingly, the CCWG is now proposing to community leadership the
following approach:<br><br>
• Requesting that the SO/AC
leadership select (following the new Bylaws) a small group of review team
members that have either participated in or closely tracked
ATRT2.<br><br>
• Requesting the ICANN organization
to do a "self-assessment" reporting on a) the extent to which
each recommendation was followed and/or implemented; b) the effectiveness
in addressing the issues identified by ATRT2; and c) the need for
additional implementation. <br><br>
• Specifically request that the
Review Team exclude the issues that are already covered by the
CCWG-Accountability WS2 (see Annex 1). <br><br>
• Suggesting that the work be
conducted & completed more quickly than normal, such as asking that
the Final Report be issued within six months<br><br>
If the suggested approach above is agreeable to SO/AC community, the next
steps would be:<br><br>
• SO/AC leadership to issue a public
statement or a letter to ICANN CEO and Board Chair that explains why
limited scope is appropriate and articulates that they have broad support
of the ICANN community <br><br>
• Call for Volunteers to note limited
scope & unique expertise sought <br><br>
• Reach out to previous ATRT Review
Team members and encourage them to apply for the narrowly-scoped ATRT3
Review Team <br><br>
• Propose a Charter for the ATRT3
Review Team to adopt that tracks the limited Scope <br><br>
<br><br>
Best regards, <br><br>
Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez & Mathieu Weill<br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>