3,197
edits
Changes
no edit summary
===Public Comment===
===Public Comment===
The public comment period ran from November 16 to December 30, 2011, and elicited only two comments. ETSI expressed agreement with the report's recommendations.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/btrwg-final-report/pdf46JwQkwTx3.pdf TR-WG Listserv Archive - ETSI comments to the TR-WG's Final Report], December 21, 2011</ref>
The public comment period ran from November 16 to December 30, 2011, and elicited only two comments. ETSI expressed agreement with the report's recommendations.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/btrwg-final-report/pdf46JwQkwTx3.pdf TR-WG Listserv Archive - ETSI comments to the TR-WG's Final Report], December 21, 2011</ref> [[Marilyn Cade]] submitted a comment in the new year, noting her objection to scheduling a public comment period to close on the week between Christmas and New Year's Eve. "I did not post my comments during that period because we must be reasonable, and respectful of the true priorities of the community – not only the ICANN internal processes."<ref name="mcade">[https://forum.icann.org/lists/btrwg-final-report/pdfPmbLNIybrU.pdf TR-WG Listserv Archive - Marilyn Cade comments to the TR-WG's Final Report], January 3, 2012</ref> Cade argued strongly for reform, both within the TLG and in the broader issues facing the ICANN board's access to expertise:
<blockquote>My comments propose a different approach for the TLG, and of more significance, propose a major change in the role of all technical advisors/liaisons overall, focused initially on the TLG. Technical advisors/liaisons should be treated as independent experts, and afforded the critical, but limited role that this would entail. An exception is appropriate for the GAC Chair and possibly for the Root Server Advisory Group.<br />
ICANN’s Board [and community] deserve independent experts – whether in economic studies, where ICANN has not yet distinguished itself; legal advice, where ICANN’s Board needs a truly independent advisor on what its role is in acting in the public interest, and in technical areas that it 'affects' in its decisions. The Board is not a surrogate for retained, independent, accountable expertise. That should become a standard. The Board is not a surrogate for understanding the issues of the SOs/ACs/SGS, but should have routine and substantial access to the leadership from such organizations.<ref name="mcade" /> </blockquote>
=="Provision of Advice" Discussion and Dwindling Efforts in the SIC==
As foreshadowed by Ray Plzak's comments in Dakar, the next mention of the TLG Review in a SIC meeting was presented in terms of "a discussion, arising out of the TLG Review, of how does ICANN get the advice that it needs when it needs it..."<ref name="312sic">[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2012-03-11-en SIC Meeting Minutes], March 11, 2012</ref> Perhaps in a nod to Marilyn Cade's comment on the TR-WG final report, the SIC "briefly discussed each of the advisory committees within ICANN and the Board-liaison functions, as well as staff advisory roles and ad hoc advice seeking mechanism" and set an action item for "SIC members to continue consideration of discussion as framed."<ref name="312sic" /> This conversation continued in June 2012,<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2012-06-27-en SIC Meeting Minutes], June 27, 2012</ref> but to little effect and with an intention to more properly stage the conversation for the next SIC meeting.
At the next meeting in September 2012, "the SIC discussed how to bring the TLG Review to a close and take some action, in preparation for a more fulsome discussion at its next meeting."<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2012-09-11-en SIC Meeting Minutes], September 11, 2012</ref> In October, the SIC instructed staff to "draft a proposed resolution for Board consideration regarding the formation of more structured relationships with the component entities of the TLG (which may include provision of liaisons) and the identification of a date by which the TLG is expected to conclude."<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2012-10-13-en SIC Meeting Minutes], October 13, 2012</ref> At its meeting in December 2012, the proposed resolution was punted to the SIC's April 2013 meeting.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2012-12-04-en SIC Meeting Minutes], December 4, 2012</ref>
In April 2013, both the TLG Review and the "Advice Provision" discussion were tabled until "a future agenda" and "a future date given the current priorities of the BGC and the need to coordinate with the BGC on this item," respectively.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2013-04-06-en SIC Meeting Minutes], April 6, 2013</ref> In September 2013, SIC Chair Ray Plzak "noted that the action following on from the review of the TLG is moving forward with oversight from the Board and the Board Chairman instead of the SIC."<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2013-09-27-en SIC Meeting Minutes], September 27, 2013</ref> In November, as the TLG Review was now under the stewardship of the Board and the Board Chairman, the committee agreed to close out its open action item regarding the review.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2013-11-16-en SIC Meeting Minutes], November 16, 2013</ref>
==Board Action and Bylaws Revisions==
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}