FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
The ALAC appreciates the opportunity to comment on Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews. The ALAC is responsible for representing the interests of Internet End Users within ICANN, and the accountability and transparency involved in all of the ICANN reviews including specific ones and more specifically on Accountability and Transparency Review Team implies a strong involvement of Internet End-Users voice.
We have the choice between 3 options regarding ATRT3:
A “No change” Begin as soon as feasible(estimate: July 2018).
B “Limit Review to Implementation of Prior Recommendations” Begin as soon as feasible (estimate: July 2018).
C “Commence RT work upon Board action on CCWG-WS2 recommendations” (with the work of the Review Team to start no later than 30 June 2019 and conclude within twelve months, as prescribed in the Bylaws).
For the ALAC, the best option is the option C, to be started no later than end of June 2019. With this option, the review team will be in charge of the evaluation of implementation of prior review recommendations and other topics, with no duplication or overlap with CCWG-WS2 implementation. Although the WS2 Rec will not likely have been implemented, there should be no prohibition on ATRT3 looking at them.
As a second option the ALAC could agree on option A. If this option is selected the ALAC suggests that the work of the review team goes from the 2018 AGM to 2019 AGM.
DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).
DRAFT N°2 for Comments
July 24, 2018 (The comments are due for July 31, 2018.)
“Final” draft of the ALAC comments on Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews. As the other reviews are out of scope this comment concerns only the Accountability and Transparency Review Team 3 (ATRT3).
The ALAC appreciates the opportunity to comment on Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews. The ALAC is responsible for representing the interests of Internet End Users within ICANN, and the accountability and transparency involved in all of the ICANN reviews including specific ones and more specifically on Accountability and Transparency Review Team implies a strong involvement of Internet End-Users voice.
We have the choice between 3 options regarding ATRT3:
A “No change” Begin as soon as feasible(estimate: July 2018).
B “Limit Review to Implementation of Prior Recommendations” Begin as soon as feasible (estimate: July 2018).
C “Commence RT work upon Board action on CCWG-WS2 recommendations” (with the work of the Review Team to start no later than 30 June 2019 and conclude within twelve months, as prescribed in the Bylaws).
For the ALAC, the best option is the option C, to be started no later than end of June 2019. With this option, the review team will be in charge of the evaluation of implementation of prior review recommendations and other topics, with no duplication or overlap with CCWG-WS2 implementation. Although the WS2 Rec will not likely have been implemented, there should be no prohibition on ATRT3 looking at them.
As a second option the ALAC could agree on option A. If this option is selected the ALAC suggests that the work of the review team goes from the 2018 AGM to 2019 AGM.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
DRAFT N°1 for Comments
July 3, 2018
I would like to suggest a first draft of the ALAC comments on Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews. The comments are now due for July 31, 2018. As the other reviews are out of scope the proposal concern only ATRT3.
We have the choice between 3 options regarding ATRT3:
A “No change” Begin as soon as feasible(estimate: July 2018).
B “Limit Review to Implementation of Prior Recommendations” Begin as soon as feasible (estimate: July 2018).
C “Commence RT work upon Board action on CCWG-WS2 recommendations”(with the work of the Review Team to start no later than 30 June 2019 and conclude within twelve months, as prescribed in the Bylaws).
To discuss this choice, we have to take into account the following elements:
- Potential Topics
- Advantages
- Disadvantages
- Execution Needs
- $ Savings in FY19
Regarding A and B, they must have already started. And it will take almost 3 more months to really start.
Therefore, The ALAC considers that it is around the option C that we must work.
Topicssuggested are:
- Evaluation of implementation of prior review recommendations and
- Other topics, limited to avoid duplication or overlap with CCWG-WS2 topics.
The ALAC suggests rephrasing the topics:
- Evaluation of implementation of prior review recommendations and
- Other topics, with no duplication or overlap with CCWG-WS2 implementation.
Advantages
- Lessened strain on volunteer and ICANN resources;
- Short-term deferral – date can be reasonably estimated.
The ALAC considers that at any moment the volunteers are putting a lot of resources on various projects. It is not sure that deferring the start of the work will change the availability of volunteer resources. But even if it is not the most important it may have positive aspect on ICANN staff resources.
Disadvantages
- Potentially critical reaction that ICANN is delaying its accountability commitments by deferring the review.
The ALAC didn’t consider that such critics will be important as the community spend the last 3,5 years on ICANN Accountability Work Stream 1 (18 months) and Work Stream 2 (2 years).
Execution Needs
- Community agreement to defer;
- Community to determine appropriate course of action for volunteers who applied to serve in response to the call in January 2017; potential re-initiation of call.
The ALAC did agree to defer.
Regarding the volunteers the ALAC proposes the following course of actions:
- Request a confirmation of availability by volunteers who applied to serve in response to the call in January 2017 and were selected by the AC/SO leadership team and if they are still willing to join the review team to confirm them;
- Re-open a call for, if and where needed, add participants to the RT.
$ Savings in FY19
- $320,000 (Based on assumption that a limited number of face-to-face meetings would occur in FY19)
The ALAC doesn’t consider that it is the more important element to be taken into account. But if on top of the other advantages cost saving is possible it is fine.
The ALAC takes this opportunity to hope that the FY20 will be smooth running and will allow for a real At-Large Summit (III).
30 Comments
Alan Greenberg
Wearing my hat as Chair of the RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team, I note that the discussion of this review includes a number of misrepresentations and errors. I am working with the MSSI support team to fully clarify these.
Alan Greenberg
Posted By Holly Raiche in the comment on Long-term solutions:
Holly Raiche
First - the short term reviews. I think any further work on the existing WHOIS framework is insane. The RDS WG has suspended its work, pending finalsation of the 'temporary model' underpinned by the 'accreditation model'. Until ICANN has worked through its response to the GDPR, with time to evaluate both its acceptability and the practicality of its implementation, it makes no sense to review a policy that is being completely overhauled. On yet another ATRT - could we first have a full evaluation of the outcomes of ATRT2 - what was recommended and what has/has not been implemented - with a bit of time to see if it all works. In fact, I'd rather have a review specifically aimed at how the post-IANA arrangements are working/will work.
Alan Greenberg
Holly, you may wish to note several things:
In my mind, not doing this review, or limiting it to a analysis of the implementation of the last review Recs was the absolutely right thing to do when this review was starting. But that did not happen. Now we need to decide whether to throw away what will be a year's work from the RT and staff support, only to have to repeat it at some later date - likely with a new Review Team and staff.
Vanda Scartezini
I can share my opinion as a member of some reviews from the first review of GNSO back in 2007 - I do not believe we should only talk about the timeline in our contribution, but also talk about the quality of reviews and what we think could be bet practices to make such reviews. to start this discussion I would like to share what have been discussed among the "former board members group" and I believe the vision of John Klensin about nowadays reviews can resume well the debate and may contribute to our work. I am sorry it is long but may deserve reading.
"The review process, as actually practiced and with the recent Nomcom review and draft assessment report as a particularly important example, has a number of symptoms consistent with being carefully organized and carried out in a way that avoids any significant possibility of bad news for the Corporation. That doesn't mean that reports should be, or are, free of criticisms and suggestions for fine-tuning -- such reports would, if nothing else, not only avoid opportunities for improvement but would simply not be credible. However, the system is conditioned to avoid really strong criticisms of the "this just isn't working and requires major changes" variety, especially in the form of "this isn't working for the Internet" (more on that below).
I don't believe the above requires any assumptions of malicious intent or behavior. A decision to hire firms without
significant, in-depth, experience in that kind of information collection creates a bias toward interviewing those people who
are really easy to find. So does selecting a firm whose experience makes them unlikely to understand sources of sample
bias and their implications. Doing a lot of the interviews at ICANN meetings biases against those who do not attend those
meetings, with the meeting attendee population disproportionately representing those who are strongly supportive or how ICANN operates and/or because it serves their interests in other ways ... and, in the extreme case, those who have figured out how to manipulate ICANN to serve their ends.Those who are not at meetings but who are recommended by active
ICANN participants with those biases are likely to have similar profiles. Those who are concerned with or about ICANN but who do not have significant support for participation are unlikely to be found walking the halls of meetings nor to be recommended for interviews by those with a vested interest in the ICANN status quo.
The other issue is that, while it is reasonable to focus on "the corporation" most of the time, the review process should, at
least IMO, also focus on ICANN's role as the administrator of a few critical Internet resources and its responsibilities to the
public in that regard.................... . It is not clear that the review process is well-designed to uncover issues in that area,( ICANN vulnerabilities ) nor to be effective if it makes significant (again, as distinct from fine-tuning) recommendations about the global public service and Internet administration roles in a way
that is beneficial to, e.g., end users."
Considering that reviews are not well conducted to the evolution of the whole community and ICANN itself, I would like to propose some points to our work here:
a) to have clear requirements to the select company and have the interested AC/SO assisting Staff in the selection interview to make sure companies/ groups of people will be able to really contribute with their work for the improvement of AC/SO under scrutiny
b) the process itself lacks good statistics practices - review process shall be done based on clear metrics collected during a defined period o time by the AC/SOs. for that AC/SO shall have clear metrics that also collect complains.
c) Selected company shall work as part of its team with people that have deep knowledge of the AC/SO but is not anymore working directly with them, to keep independence, but add some real knowledge of the goals and work to be done.
Related to time: I do believe reviews should be stopped and a new process set in place and not just continue reviews because it is the way was defined some time ago.
appreciate any comment.
Sebastien Bachollet
In "just" commenting on short term options for ATRT3.
I suggest to support Option C but with no limitation of scope. That could be a task of the ATRT3 to work on the scope taking into account what is happening following the conclusions before end of 2018, of CCWG-WS2 effort, the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCT), and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) work.
And if not decided before the ATRT3 may suggest when to start the next review (ATRT4).
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka
Based on the anticipated timelines ATRT3 was meant to have already started, the delay in ATRT3 will greatly affect future reviews. For ATRT3, we could start from the Evaluation of the implementation of prior review(ATRT2) recommendations, then come back to the start of the ATRT3 reviews.
Furthermore, I believe limiting the timelines also affects the quality of the reviews since discussions will be based on the specific time schedule - reviews will be made to beat deadlines. If we are to look at the budget costs, we could save funds but then, in the long run, get constrained in time with limited time for implementation in the review process. There is already work that needs to get done on the Reviews which may not be very good if we wait longer.
When it comes to RDS, I believe that the process should continue based on the current status of work that has been done. The current Interim GDPR compliance report is just a temporal document. The lack of participation could be attributed to the slow progress and also uncertain timelines. What I suggest is attribute timelines and drive consensus which may be a challenge but will contribute to tremendous milestones. The work that has been covered is already much and cannot be disputed or halted. Discussions and deliberation on RDS had already started going on and the new set of requirements would meet the GDPR compliance in the implementation. Despite the unknown timeliness of GDPR implication, this leaves room for more work to be done in the GNSO-RDS WG. I suggest that the work of the RDS-WHOIS2 should not be paused.
Sebastien Bachollet
I just Keep the comments related to ATRT3 (as the RDS-WHOIS2 Review is now out of scope). Some comments (like the one form Vanda) need to go to the long-term review – “quality of reviews and what we think could be best practices to make such reviews”.
Holly Raiche
On yet another ATRT - could we first have a full evaluation of the outcomes of ATRT2 - what was recommended and what has/has not been implemented - with a bit of time to see if it all works. In fact, I'd rather have a review specifically aimed at how the post-IANA arrangements are working/will work.
May 21, 2018
Sebastien Bachollet
In "just" commenting on short term options for ATRT3.
I suggest supporting Option C but with no limitation of scope. That could be a task of the ATRT3 to work on the scope taking into account what is happening following the conclusions, before end of 2018, of CCWG-WS2 effort, the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCT), and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) work.
And if not decided before the ATRT3 may suggest when to start the next review (ATRT4).
June 7, 2018
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka
Based on the anticipated timelines ATRT3 was meant to have already started, the delay in ATRT3 will greatly affect future reviews. For ATRT3, we could start from the Evaluation of the implementation of prior review (ATRT2) recommendations, then come back to the start of the ATRT3 reviews.
Furthermore, I believe limiting the timelines also affects the quality of the reviews since discussions will be based on the specific time schedule - reviews will be made to beat deadlines. If we are to look at the budget costs, we could save funds but then, in the long run, get constrained in time with limited time for implementation in the review process. There is already work that needs to get done on the Reviews which may not be very good if we wait longer.
June 11, 2018
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DRAFT N°1 for Comments
Sebastien Bachollet
July 3, 2018
I would like to suggest a first draft of the ALAC comments on Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews. The comments are now due for July 31, 2018. As the other reviews are out of scope the proposal concern only ATRT3.
We have the choice between 3 options regarding ATRT3:
A “No change” Begin as soon as feasible(estimate: July 2018).
B “Limit Review to Implementation of Prior Recommendations” Begin as soon as feasible (estimate: July 2018).
C “Commence RT work upon Board action on CCWG-WS2 recommendations”(with the work of the Review Team to start no later than 30 June 2019 and conclude within twelve months, as prescribed in the Bylaws).
To discuss this choice, we have to take into account the following elements:
Regarding A and B, they must have already started. And it will take almost 3 more months to really start.
Therefore, The ALAC considers that it is around the option C that we must work.
Topicssuggested are:
The ALAC suggests rephrasing the topics:
Advantages
The ALAC considers that at any moment the volunteers are putting a lot of resources on various projects. It is not sure that deferring the start of the work will change the availability of volunteer resources. But even if it is not the most important it may have positive aspect on ICANN staff resources.
Disadvantages
The ALAC didn’t consider that such critics will be important as the community spend the last 3,5 years on ICANN Accountability Work Stream 1 (18 months) and Work Stream 2 (2 years).
Execution Needs
The ALAC did agree to defer.
Regarding the volunteers the ALAC proposes the following course of actions:
- Request a confirmation of availability by volunteers who applied to serve in response to the call in January 2017 and were selected by the AC/SO leadership team and if they are still willing to join the review team to confirm them;
- Re-open a call for, if and where needed, add participants to the RT.
$ Savings in FY19
The ALAC doesn’t consider that it is the more important element to be taken into account. But if on top of the other advantages cost saving is possible it is fine.
The ALAC takes this opportunity to hope that the FY20 will be smooth running and will allow for a real At-Large Summit (III).
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka
Should we assume that by default - we are in for Option C, so probably we can start on the evaluation? Apparently looking at the difference in time frames, We can not guarantee the time that ATRT3 will take.
Vanda Scartezini
I agree with Sebastien my comments is for the "long term" . if option C, as proposed by Sebastien can be acceptable, I believe it can have no real impact on the budget for FY2018/19, if starting 1 july 2019, so it is quite acceptable proposition.
Points related to agenda for the ATRT3 it is clear and related to process as "call for the volunteers" ( if everybody will remember who have volunteered at the time) etc are ok, being the simple alternative.
besides ATRT3 I believe we should have A STOP on the others reviews and restart counting time from the beginning again, to each AC/SOs, at the end of ATRT3 process.
what I really see is that there is not enough time to evaluate the changes reviews recommendations made, to ensure those recommendations were or not relevant and why. without this time to evaluate changes, reviews are waste of time and money.
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka
Despite the fact that there is no adequate time for the evaluation process, I think we can assign a timeline for the process and then embark on the real work - this gives a gist into the work and hence come up with a work plan where we document the respective milestones. At this point the, it will not be about cost but the deliverables in the given period of time.
Alfredo Calderon
Vanda and Daniel make good points. It really does not make any sense to embark in a review process when the deliverables / previews review recommendations are still undergoing implementation. Besides some reviews are dependent on other WG / WT implementing recomendations. Thus, option C is the most feasible to try and meet expected outcomes of the Review process.
Option C with the support of the community should alert the Board and especially Planning & Finance of the budgetary issues to consider in its' 3 - 5 year Strategic Planning process.
Krishna Seeburn
Am quite in agreement with Sebastien and Holy as well as Alan.
As much as GDPR is concerned we know for a fact that not many registrars/registries are in line yet with the way the Whois is running and their views differ entirely from what we view as civil society by all means. Anyway, the issue i would tend to raise from what happened that led a a previous defunct Whois is agreement that never seems to properly happen. If we are talking of rough consensus. It keeps changing or i could say, some intentionally make or break. I am not sure how this will by any means be able to be resolved. The time line should be also looked into and also taking into consideration the non extensive law on privacy that will take effect in Jan 2020 in California which implies also the fact that ICANN org will need to align to. Primarily ensuring GDPR may well be a good alignment and ensure where ICANN org is. Is ICANN a Data Processor or Data Controller is important fact to understand. I think we also need to define the legal implications and the responsibilities clearly of all parties involved within the remit of the WG. From what i observed from before, if we do not underline the actors within and all the potential legal implications and ascertaining the contracted parties house for example ... we will still be stolling through the corridors and never reach consensus at all. But we should state the implications and legal implications or the different parties so that potentially these are already kind of geared to ensure that most understand and are clear. My two cents.
Krishna Seeburn
I also forgot since we are talking of time, an effective timeline with some core deliverables may be a good option. I would say if consensus on clear potential deliverables is not reached. We should ascertain that there are working alternatives than run something over and over without clearly seeing the light.
Alan Greenberg
Several points.
So bottom line, I tend to favour deferring for not more than a year, allowing a full-fledged ATRT review at that time. if this saves some money and therefore reduces other pressures a bit, that is a bonus.
Sebastien Bachollet
Thanks Alan,
For 1/ agree (it is in the first sentence of the proposed draft.
Regarding 2/ agree; my only comment is that I suggest to leave open any possible work on WS2. If for example we (ICANN as a whole) need to do something about any WS2 issue it must be possible (not mandatory).
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka
Thanks, Alan and Sabastien,
I think there must be something that can be done about the issue of WS2, I would like to inquire whether it will not affect the timelines of ATRT3.
Based on this - 1yrs is negligible in the process. So then we can just dive into another ATRT review
Justine Chew
I agree that Option C makes sense given all the justifications, advantages and disadvantages discussed in the supporting materials and above (on this wiki page).
Just to clarify administratively, is ALAC planning to submit a standard format statement opting exclusively for Option C? Or will input be submitted using the provided fill-able form? If latter, then it calls for input by way of ranking options A, B and C.
Sebastien Bachollet
Thanks for your input.
I think ALAC/At-Large deserve a real comment and not thinking boxes.
Justine Chew
I think you misunderstand me. The provided form allows for ranking of options A, B and C and comments. But if we are opting exclusively for Option C then that's fine. Of course, even if we opt for ranking we don't have to use the provided form to submit input.
Alan Greenberg
Justine, the problem is that we are suggesting that WS2 subjects be allowed. Although I think it unlikely that they will be sufficiently advanced to allow real review, it may be that as a result of the Board actions taken, some of these may be relevant. So none of the options correspond to out position.
Justine Chew
So what you're saying is in terms of timing, WS2 recommendations are due to the Board in June 2018 while for Option C, even if ATRT3 were to start latest June 2019, a 6-10 month period isn't sufficient time to implement those WS2 recommendations, let alone review them under ATRT3?
In which case, we have to look at the possibility of raising an Option D? Can we?
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka
I think Justine's suggestion is centred around ALAC submitting a standard format statement for Option C. I think we are doing an analysis of the various options and there respective impact
Alan Greenberg
Sebastien, you proposed comment reads more like our thought process in coming to the conclusion and not the statement itself. Or am I misreading it?
Vanda Scartezini
hi all. Being just ATRT3 ok is understood.
In my view is we, in fact, need to address some issues recommended for ATRT2. but a limited work now and other just in 5 yeras is however not recommended.
My suggestion would be postponed for next year, but considering budget, may start this limited approach next January till July and then face the whole review.
John Laprise
In light of the extraordinary resources required for the EPDP, is there latitude for delay ATRT3 & RDS-WHOIIS2?
Alan Greenberg
Regarding the RDS-WHOIS2 review, it is almost finished (in terms of substantive work) and is no longer the subject of the PC (see comment at the top of the PC description).
Regarding ATRT3, presuming this PC is not a hoax, then the Board evidently feels there is latitude for delay. However, I di not really understand the reference to the EPDP. An ATRT review will to a very large extent involve only those people appointed to the team, except when they towards the end of their process come out with a draft report.All of the people who we have selected for the ATRT3 are prepared to go ahead regardless of whether it is immediate or delayed.
Vanda Scartezini
I understand it is true, no matter the delay I, at least, will be prepared to work on it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Firstly I should, of course, declare a couple of 'interests with regards to Reviews (Specific in this case) in General and ATRT's (ATRT3 in particular...
That being said, I have a few edit suggestions/comments for consideration towards a final of the proposed draft as shown above, as well as a personal comment on the matter of ranked preference to the options given in the staff paper, put out for this PC.
In reverse order then and with no particular priority...
I see no reason to have introduced any mention of the proposed ATLAS III into this response. therefore propose the strike of the last sentence "The ALAC takes this opportunity to hope that the FY20 will be smooth running and will allow for a real At-Large Summit (III)."
I would also delete the following section "
The ALAC did agree to defer.
Regarding the volunteers the ALAC proposes the following course of actions:
- Request a confirmation of availability by volunteers who applied to serve in response to the call in January 2017 and were selected by the AC/SO leadership team and if they are still willing to join the review team to confirm them;
- Re-open a call for, if and where needed, add participants to the RT." as the ALAC Chair has already asked each of the volunteers endorsed by the ALAC after January 2017 process to confirm their availability and we have all done so. If indeed any personal circumstance changes in the future, regardless of what option the Board might select, and one or more of us are no longer able or willing to serve, then it is an internal matter for the ALAC, not a subject for declaration in a response to a Public Comment, for how and when the Alternates are to be proposed or additional volunteers sourced.
With Regards to this section "Disadvantages
The ALAC didn’t consider that such critics will be important as the community spend the last 3,5 years on ICANN Accountability Work Stream 1 (18 months) and Work Stream 2 (2 years)." If this is the ALACs consensus view then fine, but I find the sentence oddly composed and unnecessarily dismissive and abrasive. I also personally disagree with the sentiment, believing that ICANN should be sensitive to, in my opinion very valid criticisms of delaying one of its key Accountability Mechanisms.
With regards to this section " Advantages
The ALAC considers that at any moment the volunteers are putting a lot of resources on various projects. It is not sure that deferring the start of the work will change the availability of volunteer resources. But even if it is not the most important it may have positive aspect on ICANN staff resources." another sentence that may benefit from a bit of wordsmithing, I think it is in keeping with a sentiment I have frequently pointed out in fora where this matter has been discussed, and that is that Volunteers will always have plenty to do, and are especially likely to be running low on energy after major efforts several of which have recently run or are about to be run. BUT that in my detailed and considerable experience it is the Organisational Reviews, not the Specific Reviews and especially the ATRT's tht demand the most extensive commitment in terms of widespread Community volunteering, being limited to, in the main, the demands upon the Review Teams themselves. Staff resources are another matter but I strongly believe that Specific Reviews and ATRT's in particular, are just a 'cost of doing [good] business for ICANN' and as such staff resourcing should be appropriately dealt with.
Where you say "Regarding A and B, they must have already started. And it will take almost 3 more months to really start.
Therefore, The ALAC considers that it is around the option C that we must work." For me, this is rather a moot point to make, because of how perhaps I read the Staff paper where it clearly states "...Begin as soon as feasible (estimate: July 2018)." after all estimate is just that an 'estimate' when the staff paper was written (adn I would posit a very 'aspirational one at that' so with a PC ending in late July the 'estimate' and aspirations are clearly no longer relevant at all, and the "...as soon as feasible" in my view means any expected (and we have plenty of experience to draw upon in this) ramping up time of weeks or months can be taken into account in the calculations of what is indeed feasible. To that end, even if an A or B choice was made this in all probability might mean the Review Team not being feasible to start its work (on a strict 12 month time limitation) of October or early November 2018 and in fact, running from one ICANN AGM to another might actually have advantages.
So in considering this last point, while I can certainly support any choice of an option that the ALAC may make, in my personal response to this PC, I will now be referencing the order as A,C then B; I will edit this comment with the link to my personal response as soon as it is lodged <insert link> to show further rationale.
Vanda Scartezini
I agree with Cheryl that refer to we "are too busy with some other ICANN works", sound that we are using always the same volunteers and may also sound like we do not allow new volunteers to do the work - as such I am in agreement to cut such sentences of the text.
As I stated before in these comments, I believe we need to address some ATRT2 points not done yet. as Cheryl said if starts in the AGM or just after and end at next year AGM may have advantages , So I agree our position could be "starts the review when feasible".
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka
Being busy may not be the main issue but I think some of the WGs require substantial experience and knowledge of what has been transpiring in the past. Engagement is the main key as postulated, the actual challenge that was highlighted was Volunteer fatigue and delay of processes.
Despite the fact that we need to address ATRT2 issues, in previous discussion was to look at the recommendations as we dive into ATRT3. Following the fact that As soon as possible was to be as immediate as July 2018 - this option may not count but to follow the possible outcome after close analysis we are left with option B and C.
Regardless of the current position, our position is looking to start the review when feasible which I look forward to.