- atrt2 - lists.icann.org

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

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