June 2013 - atrt2 - lists.icann.org

Summary of public comments - For your consideration
by Alice Jansen July 12, 2013

July 12, 2013

Dear Review Team Members, You have received 31 comments<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-atrt2-02apr13/> in response to your Questions to the Community<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-02apr13-en.htm>. Attached you will find a draft summary of the comments for your consideration. Please review and raise any objections or concerns you may have by Thursday, 20 June. Thank you so much Very best regards Alice ---- Alice Jansen Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Office: +32 289 474 03 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann Email: alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>

1 2

URGENT: Final Draft RFP
by Alan Greenberg July 8, 2013

July 8, 2013

Attached please find the hopefully final RFP. Before disappearing for the next week, Brian made some edits, one of which removed the explicit reference to the GAC under scope of work. Since he is not here to present his rationale, I have temporarily left in his comment about why he felt strongly that the particular reference should not be included in the RFP. Partly in response to that, Lise and I, with Avri's agreement included an explicit reference to ICANN ACs and SOs in the Annex description of stakeholders. In addition to posting this RFP publicly, staff has identified two potential consultants to explicitly be invited to bid, One World Trust and Ken Bour. With this note, I ask staff to explain why they believe that they could meet our needs. If anyone on the RT has additional suggestions for who to invite, please let us know quickly. The list of those submitting proposals to the ATRT1 competition can be found at <http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/rfp-respondents-evaluation-19…>http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/rfp-respondents-evaluation-19…. If we are to meet the target issue date of July 1 (next Monday!), we need to finalize everything quickly, so I ask for all comments and suggestions to arrive no later that 12:00 UTC on Friday, June 28. If there are any crucial edits to them RFP itself, please submit them as soon as possible to allow discussion. Alan

11 23

Re: [atrt2] Fwd: URGENT: Final Draft RFP
by Carlos Raul Gutierrez June 30, 2013

June 30, 2013

El 29/06/2013 10:57, Avri Doria escribió: > Hi, > >> May we peek at the last version? > we? did you mean to just send that note to me. Or did you mean for it to go to the list? > > In any case, I had sent it before, but here it is again. > > avri > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >> Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP >> Date: 28 June 2013 19:22:29 EDT >> To: ATRT2 <atrt2(a)icann.org> >> >> Hi, >> >> On 28 Jun 2013, at 17:50, Alan Greenberg wrote: >> >>> Avri, I will let you do the next revision and am attaching the Word document. I don't have the time at the moment. >>> >>> Alan >> >> Alan, you are so very kind. Thank you ever so much. >> >> All, >> >> Attached is the RFP V7bis >> >> - Based on the last version Alan sent >> - 3 changes made >> - Review mode is on. >> >> 1. adjusted date for delivery to Sept 20 and dropped one status update. >> 2. added bullet discussing benchmarking. In doing so, I do not beleive I put it where suggested, but rather put it as a stand alone bullet. I just could not get the sentence to work right elsewhere. I probably misunderstood the placement instructions, so if someone can offer better placement or working, please send text. >> 3. added amended statement on GAC process issue as sub-bullet 4 of the fourth bullet. >> >> avri >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> atrt2 mailing list >>> atrt2(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 Thank you Avri, this is certainly a very different document from Alan's initial one. I think it is fine and I do not propose any changes in the text. I would jut like to leave on record some comments on the expectations I have from the expert's work: 1. I worry that others may negatively interpret "earlier" as a sign of delays, unnecessary controls, etc. etc.. Colleagues from GAC clearly expressed in Beijing the fact that GAC will never be able to act at the same speed as GNSO. So I would expect that the expert would concentrate on defining the right moment and the right level of engagement of GAC, instead of the point in time only. 2. One of the success factors of the PDP should also be how significant and indicative are the public comments received. i.e. do they represent all the different point of views ? do they represent views of all stakeholders ? is this currently being considered ? What about minority positions? I worry from David Olive's report on public comments, the group of issues that did not receive any public comments. 3. the third paragraph in the ANNEX should be turned around into a question for the expert to answer: IS *The GNSO PDP an effective, accountable and transparent process?* 4. I would expect from an expert to come up with his own recommendations on how to improve the different aspects of the PDP Thank you and have a nice Sunday Carlos Raul (out of Newark NJ)

2 1

Reminder and a request
by Brian Cute June 28, 2013

June 28, 2013

RT, A reminder from our last call, if you have any focused questions for the CSG, please send them to the list prior to Wednesday, June 26. Questions for the ACs and SOs are due by July 5. With respect to the Independent Expert who will address the PDP process, if you know of any organizations or individuals who could undertake the work, please identify them to the list. Thank you. Best, Brian Sent from my iPhone

2 1

Re: [atrt2] [atrt2-coordination] Slides & Agenda? Session with CSG on Monday
by Avri Doria June 27, 2013

June 27, 2013

(resend) On 27 Jun 2013, at 08:26, Alice Jansen wrote: > No questions were circulated on the list following Brian's request My very very late thoughts on questions, but I wanted to see comments first and this morning was the first chance I had to spend some time on the comments. Very grateful for the summary. I have one general question type: - Only the BC submitted an input to the ATRT questionnaire and none of the constituencies answered the full questionnaire. - Can you give us a reason for the lack of comments or response? - Are we asking the wrong questions? - Asking in the wrong way? Specific questions based on BC statement: - BC used the term “material new obligations”. Can you give an idea of how this is used? - Can you give examples of the trend to top down decision making, especially in the way non AOC committees and WG are established. - What sort of evidence would be sufficient to allow the community to know its recommendations "are considered by ICANN staff and board when making decisions." thanks

1 0

Re: [atrt2] [atrt2-coordination] Slides & Agenda? Session with CSG on Monday
by Avri Doria June 27, 2013

June 27, 2013

On 27 Jun 2013, at 08:26, Alice Jansen wrote: > No questions were circulated on the list following Brian's request My very very late thoughts on questions, but I wanted to see comments first and this morning was the first chance I had to spend some time on the comments. Very grateful for the summary. I have one general question type: - Only the BC submitted an input to the ATRT questionnaire and none of the constituencies answered the full questionnaire. - Can you give us a reason for the lack of comments or response? - Are we asking the wrong questions? - Asking in the wrong way? Specific questions based on BC statement: - BC used the term “material new obligations”. Can you give an idea of how this is used? - Can you give examples of the trend to top down decision making, especially in the way non AOC committees and WG are established. - What sort of evidence would be sufficient to allow the community to know its recommendations "are considered by ICANN staff and board when making decisions." thanks

1 0

WHOIS update - Preliminary report from EWG
by Larisa B. Gurnick June 26, 2013

June 26, 2013

Dear WS 3 members, The Expert Working Group (EWG) released its initial report and recommendations - https://community.icann.org/display/WG/Explore+the+Draft+Next+Generation+gT…, which address many of the issues raised by the WHOIS RT. Please note upcoming events that may be of interest: * A webinar<https://www.icann.org/en/about/learning/webinars/gtld-directory-services-24…> on Monday, 8 July at 15:00-16:30 UTC: EWG will walk through the proposal and invite views and input from Community. * A consultation in Durban<http://durban47.icann.org/node/39627> on Monday, 15 July: EWG will present the outcome of their work and open the floor for any questions or feedback. Staff is working on responses to your follow up questions pertaining to the WHOIS implementation and will provide an update prior to Durban. Additionally, staff will coordinate a meeting in Durban with key WHOIS implementation staff and the members of WS 3. Best regards, Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995

2 1

ATRT2 letter to governments
by Brian Cute June 25, 2013

June 25, 2013

In order to make the ATRT2's outreach letter to governments effective, it is essential that the letter be addressed to the appropriate government official. Heather Dryden, Chair of the GAC has offered GAC resources to provide contact information for GAC member countries. While that information is helpful, in many instances we still do not have the name of the relevant government official/Minister to whom the letter should be addressed. To expedite the outreach letter, we may need additional resources from the GAC and from ICANN's Government Engagement team to supplement the list. Heather, would a request that each GAC representative provide the name of the relevant Minister and his/her email address be practical and fruitful? Additionally, could ICANN's Government Engagement team provide or direct ICANN staff to additional resources that could supplement the list of addresses? We are open to suggestions as to how to expedite this important task. The Review Team would like to send the outreach letters by 1 July at the latest. The ATRT2 greatly appreciates your assistance with this important task. I look forward to your response as to the next steps. Kind regards, Brian Cute

7 7

Fwd: ATRT2 letter to governments LAC
by Carlos Raúl Gutierrez June 24, 2013

June 24, 2013

Brian, Larisa! I just reviewed the list for Latin America and the Caribbean from Rodrigo de la Parra This is pretty up to date!!! only Costa Rica, both the (Science and Technology) Minister and the (Telecom (Vice Minister9 belong to the same Ministry Science, Technology and Telecom, so it is enough to address Alejandro Cruz in this case Thank you very much Rodrigo and Staff Carlos Raúl Gutierrez -- crg(a)isoc-cr.org Skype carlos.raulg +506 7070 7176 Inicio del mensaje reenviado:

1 0

Re: [atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study
by Alan Greenberg June 23, 2013

June 23, 2013

I certainly will no go on record as saying the GAC is ineffective, but I think that we can come up with wording that will raise the issue of GAC involvement in the PDP process which needs to include be the process for getting information into the PDP, and how the PDP treats such input. Alan At 21/06/2013 09:09 AM, Carlos Raul wrote: >if everything you said is true, the absolute >absence of GAC advice is enough to ring all the bells Allan!!!! >If GAC is innefective, do we need another GAC model? GA without a "C"? > > >Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez >Skype carlos.raulg >_________ >Apartado 1571-1000 >COSTA RICA > > > >On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Lise, >As I said in the meeting, if we cite the GAC >explicitly, we will also need to add whether that >any GAC advice/views were received in a timely manner. >I did not call out the GAC explicitly when I >drafted this, because I was aware of the answer. >On the PDP process that we will be evaluating, I >do not believe that we have received any GAC >advice or even, had the benefit of general views >during the process. There may be some subtle >examples of views being known, but I can't be >sure. I cannot recal any intervention of the GAC >AFTER the PDP was completed and passed to the >Board where the GAC objected. Perhaps Avri has a memory of such an occurrence. >Note that the new gTLD PDP was before the period >we are reviewing, since it was a completely >different process, the IGO/INGO PDP is not yet >completed, and there has been no completed PDP on >Whois during that period either. >Alan >At 21/06/2013 05:26 AM, Lise Fuhr wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >I think that Avri´s version changes the focus > too much away from the purpose > >of Jørgen's text, a purpose that it is my understanding that there were > >support to at the conference call. > > > >If we only look at GAC's status as defined in ICANN's bylaws the scope is > >much narrower and we will not review if there are any needs to change the > >bylaws or other processes but only if ICANN is complying to the existing > >bylaws in this matter. > > > >So I find we should keep Jørgen's wording. > > > >Best, > >Lise > > > >-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > >Fra: > <mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org>atrt2-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af > >Avri Doria > >Sendt: 20. juni 2013 20:21 > >Cc: ATRT2 > >Emne: Re: [atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study > > > >Hi, > > > >I would be more comfortable with a more ICANN centric question, like: > > > >- Whether the views of the GAC have been handled appropriately given their > >status as defined in the ICANN bylaws. > > > > > >avri > > > > > >On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:41, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote: > > > > > Dear colleagues > > > > > > Proposal for a new bullit between 86 and 87 (a 86A): > > > > > > - whether in particular the views and > advice provided by GAC has been duly > >taken into account given the specific tasks of national governments with > >respect to public policy. > > > > > > Best wishes > > > Jørgen > > > _______________________________________________ > > > atrt2 mailing list > > > <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>atrt2(a)icann.org > > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >atrt2 mailing list > ><mailto:atrt2@icann.org>atrt2(a)icann.org > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >atrt2 mailing list > ><mailto:atrt2@icann.org>atrt2(a)icann.org > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 > >_______________________________________________ >atrt2 mailing list ><mailto:atrt2@icann.org>atrt2(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

2 4