At-Large Workspace: Long-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline of Reviews
AttachmentsPublic Comment Close | Statement | Status | Assignee(s) | Call for | Call for | Vote Open | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Hide the information below, please click here
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.
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).
Comments
Holly, you have responded to two different Public Comments here. I have reposted your first paragraph in the correct place.
Thanks - I realised that there were two places to comment after I posted the comments
My main concern is with the idea that the Bylaws state that every 5-years a Reviews must be done. My perception is that once Policy is approved and the implemmentation process initaites, it does not seem adequate. Why? It does not make sense to review a policy that has not deliverables in place to measure its' effectiiveness. Threrefore, it seems that an evaluation on the time when a review must be initiated must concern a time frame that seeks a realistic starting point: at least 3 years once a Policy has been implemented and metrics/deliverbles are in place to "really' evaluate its'effectiveness.
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.
In the longer term, I'd support - in general terms - all of the recommendations
yes, stagger reviews so that there is a limit as to how many can be undertaken at any one time - noting that some reviews may be very quick and not resource intensive
yes, time limits please (or at least a justification required for going over time
yes, identify and focus on areas that most need review (recognising that there will not necessarily be agreement on this)
and yes, at the end of the day, flexibility in case important issues arise