June 2013 - atrt2 - lists.icann.org

Independent Expert
by Brian Cute June 8, 2013

June 8, 2013

Attached is a rationale supporting the engagement of an Independent Expert to focus on Metrics. Regards, Brian

1 0

Independent Expert - spreadsheet-Zhang.xlsx
by 张新生 June 8, 2013

June 8, 2013

Attachment is my reply to the Independent Expert‘ issues. I think that the an Independent Expert should teke no more than 2 issues. Zhang Xinsheng MIIT

1 0

Re: [atrt2] Justification for Independent Expert/Facilitator on the public interest discussion
by Carlos Raul June 8, 2013

June 8, 2013

Thank you Brian for the opportunity. My justification as per attachment has great advantage in hindsight over the original one pager, that many useful discussion have taken place since I wrote it. In particular - my discussions with Steve Crocker over the BCG 2008 report on the Board (Olivier: I hope it is on the wiki) - lively activity in the GAC over the last few weeks as we look forward to Durban - Brain and Olivier's great practical contributions in the Work-streams calls over the last few days, to make us start thinking about our own ideas The proposal relates directly to many other ideas, that I directly support - the letter to Governments (ongoing) - the case study on PDP effectiveness (Alan) - the need for metrics (Brian) So I will refer in the spreadsheet to the other 3 proposals only, otherwise I wont make the deadline........... Best regards and a nice Sunday to all of you! *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* Skype carlos.raulg _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA* On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> wrote: > Review Team, > > To complete the process of determining whether ATRT2 should engage an > Independent Expert, we will proceed with a two-step process: > > Step One: Final discussion of proposed issues for > Independent Expert > > On the last full ATRT2 Review Team call, Members who put forward potential > issues for Independent Expert work were afforded a minimal amount of time > to articulate why their proposed issue were deserving of theengagement of > an Independent Expert. Nor was there an opportunity for other Review Team > members to express their views on the candidate issues. > > For the next 72 hours (until 10:00p.m. UTC , Saturday), all Review Team > members are asked to put their views forward, by email on the ATRT2 email > list, concerning the proposed issues and whether ATRT2 should engage an > Independent Expert. Members who offered an issue for consideration are > invited to provide justification for their issue(s). Other Review Team > members are invited to support a proposed issue or provide arguments as to > why a proposed issue does not merit the work of an Independent Expert. To > the extent possible, we do not want this process to become a "beauty > contest" so please submit comments that are framed to address only the > individual merits of a proposed issue and not a comparison of one proposal > to another. The 6 issues under consideration are as follows: > > 1. Case Studies of PDPs and Processes with regard to ATRT1 advice (Avri) > 2. Whistle-blower program - Effectiveness and adherence to standards (Avri) > 3. ICANN Finances (Lise) > 4. Case study re: effectiveness of PDP process (Alan) > 5. Public Interest - ecosystem value chain (Carlos) > 6. Metrics (Brian) > > (Note that the ATRT2 government representatives are addressing Jorgen’s > proposed issue of “Outreach” to governments separately and for that reason > has been removed from the list of potential Independent Expert issues.) > > Falling under Issue #1 above, a number of specific case studies have been > recommended (byAvri and identified from review of Public Comments received > to date). When the Doodle poll is circulated, Review Team members who > support Issue #1 above will also be asked to identify specific case studies > to be undertaken by an Independent Expert from the following list: > > > 1. New gTLD program > > 2. Applicant Support program > > 3. ICANN Travel policy > > 4. IDN ccTLD PDP > > 5. ASO Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by > the IAN > > 6. Vertical Integration > > 7. Public Interest Commitments > > 8. Trademark Clearing House > > 9. Board - GAC interaction concerning GAC Advise > > 10. External review of the Board > > 11. ICANN’s relationship with the registrars > > 12. Independent assessment of the public comments to avoid self-dealing > and post hoc rationalization > > 13. Staff interaction and support of business and intellectual property > interests > > 14. Gaps in stakeholders’ presence in ICANN > > 15. Cross Community efforts, modalities and success > > While all of the issues and potential case studies below may be suitable > for review by ATRT2, Members are being asked to identify whether a given > issue requires the assistance of anIndependent Expert. When putting > forward your views on the proposed issues, please consider and address the > following factors: > > - whether the work of an Independent Expert on the issue > will provide critical benefit to ATRT2 and its recommendations to the ICANN > Board; > > > - could the issue be effectively addressed with existing > ATRT2 resources; > > - how significant do you expect this issue to be in terms > of impact on ICANN’s accountability and transparency; > - how many issues could/should an Independent Expert be > asked to undertake (time and money are natural constraints); > - is the issue one that would need to factor into the > ATRT2 recommendations or one that would be a stand-alone analysis that, in > parallel, is complementary to the ATRT2's work; > > - is this issue related to specific mandate of paragraph > 9.1 of the Affirmation of Commitments; > > > Attached for your review are the “1 pager” documents that were submitted > as proposed issues. Also attached is a spreadsheet that you can use to > support or oppose a given issue. Use of the spreadsheet is at your > discretion. Comments in any format are welcome. > > > > Step 2: Doodle Poll > > When the 72 hour period closes, ICANN Staff will circulate a Doodle poll > for Review Team members to vote on the issue (or issues) that he or she > believes requires the work of an Independent Expert. > > > > Regards, > Brian, Avri, Lise and Alan > > _______________________________________________ > atrt2 mailing list > atrt2(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 > >

2 1

Letter to Governments from ATRT2 government reps
by Brian Cute June 7, 2013

June 7, 2013

Review Team, Attached is the letter prepared by Larry and Jorgen that the government representatives serving on ATRT2 can sign with respect to the outreach proposal made by Jorgen. I will be working with Heather and ICANN staff in the short term to have the letter sent to the appropriate government officials. For the government representatives on ATRT2, if you have a digital copy of your signature, would you please forward it to Larisa so it can be affixed to the letter. Thank you. Regards, Brian

3 3

ATRT 2 updated timeline and project management observations
by Larisa B. Gurnick June 6, 2013

June 6, 2013

Dear ATRT 2 members, As you consider several important matters - engaging an independent expert, issues to research and analyze, and outreach to government officials, I would like to provide you with the updated timeline along with a few project management observations. Timeline * 9 weeks remain between now and the Melbourne meeting, excluding one week of Durban meeting. * It typically takes 6-8 weeks to go through an RFP process, select and engage an outside expert at ICANN. [cid:image001.png@01CE6310.6F99F3B0] Scope of work under consideration * Assessing implementation of recommendations from previous review teams involves 71 recommendations: o ATRT 1 - 27 recommendations o WHOIS - 16 recommendations o SSR - 28 recommendations * Potential new issues are numerous and broadly-stated. * 9 weeks remains to review information provided by staff, analyze community feedback, gather and analyze additional feedback from governments, SOs, ACs and other groups and form preliminary conclusions - the time does not appear to be sufficient to cover the large body of work being considered by the Review Team [cid:image003.png@01CE6310.6F99F3B0] *Some issues are repeated across categories Broadly-stated issues As currently stated, potential new issues are broad and multi-faceted. For example, Transparency in Financial Matters may encompass: 1. Operating Plan and Budget process 2. Annual audit and report by independent public accountants 3. Form 990, the required United States return for organizations exempt from income taxes under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 4. Significant developments since ATRT 1 report, impacting ICANN's financial matters - i.e., New gTLD program finances 5. Substantive work underway by ICANN staff, Board or community impacting Transparency in Financial Matters - i.e., linkage of budget and AtTask Portfolios Using the example of Transparency in Financial Matters, full documentation pertaining just to the five areas identified without full input from all staff would easily translate to a few thousand pages of documentation. Staff would like to provide targeted information that would be useful to the Review Team. Staff suggests that the Review Team consider a more focused and targeted approach, given limited time and resources. Staff is fully committed to supporting the important work of the Review Team and facilitating a productive outcome as part of the continuous improvement of ICANN's accountability and transparency. 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

1 0

Work Streams and ATRT2 Report
by Brian Cute June 5, 2013

June 5, 2013

Review Team, The first few calls of Work Streams 1 – 4 are progressing well. The Work Stream Chairs have clarified the issues that each Work Stream will address and are in the process of identifying documents and required reading for Work Stream members. Reading the required and relevant documents as requested by the Chairs will be critical to ATRT2's assessment of ICANN's progress on Accountability and Transparency. From an organizational standpoint, Olivier created a Wiki for Work Stream 1 and is organizing the documents that are relevant to WS1's work there. Each Chair should organize with his/her Work Stream in consultation with WS members but I would recommend reviewing the Wiki created by Olivier as a potential tool. Attached is an outline from the Report from ATRT1. It captures the structure of the Report and illustrates how ATRT1 approached background documentation and analysis. This is offered as an illustrative snapshot and ATRT2 will need create its own Report structure collaboratively, perhaps building on this outline. Please provide your suggestions on how ATRT2 should structure its Report to the ATRT2 mail list. Finally, in looking at the membership of the respective Work Streams (and sub work streams), I note that certain sub work streams are not well populated. It would be best if there were at least 3 ATRT2 members on a given work stream. I am calling for ATRT2 members to consider joining work streams that are thinly populated. If you are participating in a work stream that is heavily populated, I ask that you strongly consider offering to participate in a different, thinly populated work stream so we can have optimal coverage. Regards, Brian

1 0

Operationalizing the role of governments in Internet Governance | The ITU Blog
by "Carlos Raúl G." June 5, 2013

June 5, 2013

Dear ATRT2 colleagues! As many, but not all of you where present in Geneva a few weeks ago, I want to share this summary of Brazil's proposal at WTPF13 (the seventh opinion so to say...) http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/operationalizing-the-role-of-governme… The delegation of Costa Rica supported this initiative, considering the appropriateness of the Forum for the discussion of the issue, as opposed to WCIT12, whose Revision of the ITR's Costa Rica opposed and still does. In a related move Brazil has changed his GAC representative, putting GAC higher in their policy agenda I would say. Although not directly related to our task, I consider this increasing interest of Governments in Internet Governance important for ICANN to follow up closely, and from our report to recommend close follow up of their "Government + ITU" outreach efforts over the next few years, as everything is moving forward. Best Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez SUTEL, Costa Rica

1 0