The following ATRT3 members have offered to act as implementation shepherds:
- Adetola Sogbesan
- Cheryl Langdon-Orr
- Daniel Nanghaka
- Pat Kane
- Sébastien Bachollet
- Vanda Scartezini
Mailing list address: atrt3-implementation-shepherds@icann.org
Mailing list archives: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt3-implementation-shepherds/
Per the Operating Standards, the role of the implementation shepherd is to be the first contact for any questions or clarifications ICANN organization is seeking once the implementation is underway. The implementation shepherd may provide information and clarification via publicly archived emails or recorded calls on:
- Intent of recommendations.
- Rationale for recommendations.
- Facts that led the review team to certain conclusions.
- The envisioned implementation timeline.
- Metrics related to the measure of implementation success.
All discussions between the implementation shepherd and ICANN organization and the ICANN Board shall be publicly archived. In case of complex questions or issues, the implementation shepherd is strongly encouraged to confer with former review team colleagues or, if appropriate, the wider community. The role of the implementation shepherd does not negate ICANN organization or Board’s option to reach out to the community for additional input at any time during the implementation process.
Requests for Clarification
| # | Request | Submitted on | Addressed on | Response Provided |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ICANN org continues to address the implementation of your “Recommendations, Suggestions, and Observations Related to the Prioritization and Rationalization of Activities, Policies, and Recommendations”. As you may know, ICANN org has begun to include community prioritization in the annual Operating and Financial Planning cycles to inform decision-making for the annual and five-year planning process. See here<https://community.icann.org/display/projfinadhocws/ICANN+Planning+Prioritization+Framework+Project> for more information. Furthermore, ICANN org is developing a process for retiring recommendations. In this regard, ICANN org wishes to seek your input on the bold-highlighted language that is on page 97 of section 10.3 (“Analysis of Information and Identification of Issues Related to the Prioritization and Rationalization of Activities, Policies, and Recommendations”) of the ATRT3 Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atrt3-report-29may20-en.pdf>: “ATRT3 also notes that the responses to its survey regarding prioritization: * 92% of Structures and 73% of individuals supported ATRT3 making recommendations about prioritization and rationalization of ICANN activities. * 100% of Structures and 85% of individuals supported ATRT3 making recommendations about including a process to retire recommendations as it becomes apparent that the community will never get to them or they have been overtaken by other events. * 100% of Structures and 97% of individuals supported ATRT3 making recommendations about having the community or representative(s) of the community be involved as decisional participants in any mechanism which makes recommendations for prioritizing and rationalizing work for ICANN. It is in this context that the ATRT3 concluded that it will make a recommendation with respect to the prioritization of recommendations from reviews and cross-community working groups.” Could you clarify the meaning of “as it becomes apparent that the community will never get to them” and/or provide us with examples? | 12 Dec 22 | 11 Jan 23 call |
| Date of Call | Name of Call | Zoom Replay | Transcript |
@ 13:00 UTC | Implementation Shepherds Meetings with the ATRT3 Board Caucus Group (BCG) | Zoom Replay | English |
@ 21:00 UTC | Implementation Shepherds Discussion Call | Zoom Replay | |
@ 17:15 UTC | Implementation Shepherds - ATRT3 Recs. - Request for Clarification Call | Zoom Replay |
