June 2013 - atrt2 - lists.icann.org

PDP Effectiveness Study
by Jørgen C Abild Andersen June 22, 2013

June 22, 2013

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

8 11

Draft ToR on PDP process
by Carlos Raul Gutierrez June 22, 2013

June 22, 2013

Dear Alna, I came in late into the last telephone conference and would like to sak you for the last draft of the proposal, so I can read it again and birng in my comments thank you vey much and have a nice Sunday -- *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* skype carlos.raulg _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA* Mobile +506 6060 7176

1 0

ATRT2 on Badges
by Avri Doria June 21, 2013

June 21, 2013

Hi, I have noticed that a lot of people instead of putting their company name, put their ACname or SOname or SGname on their badge as opposed to their real life affiliation. I am wondering whether during a meeting where we want peoples' opinions, it might be useful to put ATRT2 on our badges as a sign that we are available to listen. I suppose we can each decide for ourselves if we want that on our badges. avri

2 1

Sustaining the legitimacy of the multistakeholder model
by Jørgen C Abild Andersen June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

Dear WS4 colleagues For your consideration and further discussion in WS4 please find attached as promised a short paper on "Sustaining the legitimacy of the multistakeholder model". Best regards Jørgen

1 0

ATRT2 and Public comment - remarks to the meeting today
by Lise Fuhr June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

Dear all, I am sorry I can't attend the meeting today, but I have some comments about the public comments. We have asked for public comments about issues that the ATRT2 should look into in this review. In order to respect the comments and the time used creating them, I think it is very important to ensure that all the issues mentioned in the comments are either reflected and specifically taken care of in each work-stream. If not included, we need to specify why the issue isn't reflected and/or taken care of. This need to be a very explicit explanation. This means that we have to make a reply document to the comments (and of course more work), but it will be a way to ensure transparency of our choices to the public. Best, Lise

4 3

Re: [atrt2] Feedback from ARINIC ATRT2 presentation
by Fiona Asonga June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

Hallo Carlos, My presentation attached. kind regards Fiona ----- Original Message ----- From: crg(a)isoc-cr.org To: "Fiona Asonga" <fasonga(a)kixp.or.ke> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 3:35:21 PM Subject: Re: [atrt2] Feedback from ARINIC ATRT2 presentation Hello! Do you have a copy of your presentation? Cheers CRG Enviado desde un dispositivo Blackberry® de Kolbi -----Original Message----- From: Fiona Asonga <fasonga(a)kixp.or.ke> Sender: atrt2-bounces(a)icann.org Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:52:01 To: ATRT2<atrt2(a)icann.org> Subject: [atrt2] Feedback from ARINIC ATRT2 presentation Dear Brian, FYI I have just concluded a session on briefing the AFRICA community attending AFRINIC 18 in Lusaka Zambia on the work of ATRT2 to encourage participation. The following feedback was given from the audience: 1. ATRT2 should communicate with African governments in the right way. A large part of African governments lack knowledge on the Affirmation of Commitments and it's purpose. The governments are not going to respond to questionnaires placed on website, formal communication has to be sent to them with a background of what the AOC and review processes are all about. 2. The community stakeholders in the session felt that there is need for more sensitization to participate in such an important review process. My responses: 1. I have asked the government representatives who are present at this meeting to share the contact information of the correct persons to address for input for the review process. 2. I have asked them to look at the previous questions and send their response to comments-atrt2-02apr13(a)icann.org I am aware that the input shall be out of the comments period and would appreciate guidance since I wasn't sure where else to send their comments. 3. I have extended an invitation to those who can join via adobe to listen in to our discussions. Kind regards Fiona Asonga _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

1 0

Agenda + Materials - call on 20 June
by Alice Jansen June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

Dear Review Team Members, In anticipation of your conference call scheduled for Thursday, 20 June – 16:00-17:30 UTC ( time converter: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ATRT2+Call+07+-+20…) please find attached and enclosed the following: * Proposed call agenda (also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/Conference+Call+07) * Preliminary report call 06 – for your consideration * Draft Summary of public comments – for your consideration * Durban schedule: https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/Durban+-+12+July-18+July+2013 Thanks 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>

3 3

Feedback from ARINIC ATRT2 presentation
by Fiona Asonga June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

Dear Brian, FYI I have just concluded a session on briefing the AFRICA community attending AFRINIC 18 in Lusaka Zambia on the work of ATRT2 to encourage participation. The following feedback was given from the audience: 1. ATRT2 should communicate with African governments in the right way. A large part of African governments lack knowledge on the Affirmation of Commitments and it's purpose. The governments are not going to respond to questionnaires placed on website, formal communication has to be sent to them with a background of what the AOC and review processes are all about. 2. The community stakeholders in the session felt that there is need for more sensitization to participate in such an important review process. My responses: 1. I have asked the government representatives who are present at this meeting to share the contact information of the correct persons to address for input for the review process. 2. I have asked them to look at the previous questions and send their response to comments-atrt2-02apr13(a)icann.org I am aware that the input shall be out of the comments period and would appreciate guidance since I wasn't sure where else to send their comments. 3. I have extended an invitation to those who can join via adobe to listen in to our discussions. Kind regards Fiona Asonga

1 0

Proposal for external consultant
by Alan Greenberg June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

On behalf of the Chair and the other VCs, here is the first draft of the proposal for a study on the GNSO PDP Effectiveness for discussion at our meeting tomorrow (or today for some). Alan

1 0

Results of Independent Expert Doodle poll
by Brian Cute June 17, 2013

June 17, 2013

Review Team, The results of the Doodle poll on the potential engagement of an Independent Expert have been compiled. The issues receiving the most votes were: 1. Case study re: effectiveness of PDP process – 9 votes 2. Metrics – 7 votes 3. Case Studies of PDPs and Processes with regard to ATRT1 advice – 6 votes Noting that the "effectiveness of the PDP process" received the most votes (with 13 of 16 RT members casting votes) and received support from more than half of the members of the ATRT2 Review Team, the Chair and Vice Chairs recommend that the Review Team proceed with and RFP process to identify and select an Independent Expert to assist with this task. With respect to #2 Metrics, although the issue received support from more than half of the voters, the Chair and Vice Chairs recommend that the ATRT2 not engage an Independent Expert on this issue. ICANN staff has indicated that it is in the process of engaging an Independent Expert/consultant to develop accountability and transparency metrics. The ATRT2 can and should engage with ICANN staff and the Independent Expert/consultant as terms of reference and metrics frameworks are developed. With respect to #3, Case Studies of PDPs and Processes with regard to ATRT1 advice, the Chair and Vice Chairs recommend that the ATRT2 not engage an Independent Expert directly on this issue. However, of the 15 candidate case studies that received votes, two of the highest ranked case studies tie logically to the effectiveness of the PDP process: 1) Gaps in stakeholders' presence in ICANN; and 2) Cross Community Groups, modalities and success. On the basis of their relevance, these two should be explicitly included in the work of the Independent Expert on the effectiveness of the PDP process, to the extent that they reasonably apply. Last, the other two highly rated case studies under #3 were 1) the New gTLD program; and 2) ICANN's relationship with the registrars. The ATRT2 may want to address these highly ranked case studies in the course of its work, depending on the deliberations of the relevant Work Stream groups. We look forward to discussing this on our RT call this coming Thursday. Regards, Brian, Avri, Lise and Alan

1 0