Versions Compared

Old Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Matt Ashtiani

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Matt Ashtiani

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Migrated to Confluence 4.0

At-Large Improvements Taskforce Meeting with the SIC 

  • Thursday, 15 March 2012
  • Time: 8:30 - 9:

...

  • 00     
  • Meeting Room: Girasol
  • Attendees: Ray Plzak, Sebastien Bachollet, Olivier Crepin-Léblond, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Olof Nordling, Heidi Ullrich, Matt Ashtiani

 

  • Current Project
    • AI: Improvements Taskforce to develop a checklist so things that can easily be checked off and assessed. Having a checklist will ensure that one can easily determine where the project stands. - RP
    • I do not want flowery introductions. I am more concerned with determining areas which may have difficulties, require additional resources, etc. - RP
    • The main problem at the moment is the public comment period. Olivier is current speaking with  the appropriate ICANN Staff to determine if the period can be extended. – CLO
    • We have not managed to get a consumer constituency but we have met with the GNSO. – CLO
      • If you can have a recommendation as a follow up, I believe it would allow us to more appropriately deal with this issue. – RP
      • We are starting to ensure, in the RALOs, that there is a proper flagging of work groups, calls for comments, etc. This may allow for consumer participation in this regards. – CLO
  • I want to ensure that the ALAC extends into all SOs/ACs.  - RP
    • AI: Within the Final Report, the Improvements Taskforce will show both how the ALAC works with all SOs/ACs, as well as why the work is relevant. - CLO
  • Education and engagement is contingent on support from ICANN’s budget. There is a responsibility on the ALAC and the ALAC Executive, but the ICANN Strategic Plan must assist in this effort. This should be reported on using the following method:
    • We go through and prepare the criteria so that we have done an assessment of what has happened. It is essentially an internal review.  During this process, identify the barriers that were met/overcome. - RP
    • If there were activities that move beyond your reach of control, it would be worthwhile for recommends as to where the monitoring of this action item will occur.  – RP
    • You could also propose the metrics by which you think the AI should be gaged. – ON
    • Essentially we need to state “here are the things we must do to move forward.” – RP
  • Be sure to formulate a process by which the material and its progress can be engaged. – RP
  • Review
    • What did you say you would do? Did you do it? How well did you do it? - RP
    • It would most likely be acceptable, at some point, to conduct your own reviews followed by external reviews. - RP/CLO
    • As long as you can reference things clearly and easily, I will be find with how you organize the wiki. – RP
    • Policy Track (i.e. continuous tracking) – ensure that if someone wants to investigate a policy that they could follow the information and determine how the policy was made – RP
    • It appears to be on track, nothing jumped out at me. I think we are ready to move forward. – RP
    • Regarding this project, there is nothing that will extend past June. - CLO
    • The Next Review
      • The intent is for the review to be very measured, as well as for it to have concrete milestones – RP
        • We are thinking of a 5-year cycle, with a review at 2 years.
        • The review at 2 years will take 8 months with two ICANNers tasked to review – RP
  • There should then be a 2-month interaction with a reviewer and the reviewee.  -- RP
    • During this 2-month period, there will be clarification, a comparison and an open honest discussion.
    • I think we would then have a public comment period. I would expect the AAC will be making a public comment
    • This is meant to be a cooperative working experience and environment, not
  • We will then establish the development/implementation plan.
    • We should then set aside a year for implementation.
    • Staff will then have 2 years to work in this environment. They need this time to set it all up and to develop the project in period.
    • Staff will develop the plan in coordination with the Chair of the ALAC and/or the Chair’s representative(s)
    • We would then have 4 months for internal review.
  • Will additional Staff resources be provided? – CLO
    • We will need to wait and see. - RP
    • That’s fine, I just wanted you to be aware of the situation – CLO
    unmigrated-wiki-markup
  • The same criteria for used for \ [GNSO Evaluation\] will be used in this as well.
    • We can create out own and give it to the reviewers, but they are not obligated to use the criteria.
    • Heidi will be working with the pertinent Staff/Community Members on the criteria
    • We MUST develop measurable, objective questions.
    • This review will be public.
    • AI: Heidi to contact Rob Hoggarth for information on the GNSO Stakeholder Review Criteria.
    • I expect to see how well the At Large works with both internal and external organizations (ISOC)