- atrt2 - lists.icann.org

Board Reconsideration Process
by Alan Greenberg June 13, 2013

June 13, 2013

There has been considerable discussion within the overall community and in particular the GNSO about the Board Governance Committee's recent decision to deny the reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group in the GNSO regarding the decision to implement addition TM-related right in the Trademark Clearinghouse. The BGC decision can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat…. The discussion in the GNSO has largely focused not on the substance of the IP rights decision but on the tone and substance of the rationale provided for the decision, which, in the minds of some, threatens the entire multi-stakeholder model. (AG: I tend to agree that the implications of the rationale are onerous, and according to Bylaws, the decision and presumably the rationale behind it set precedent for future decisions and actions). What follows is an e-mail exchange between Jeff Neuman and several Board members (in reverse time order - earliest messages at the end), and attached are Jeff's note from his introduction of an extensive GNSO discussion today. I expect this issue to be formally brought to the attention of the ATRT2, and thus this head's up. Alan >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: 'Cherine Chalaby' <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson > <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> >CC: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, 'Bruce Tonkin' > <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi > <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org>, Fadi Chehade > <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org>, Michelle > Bright <michelle.bright(a)icann.org>, > "Megan Bishop" > <megan.bishop(a)icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos(a)icann.org>, > "John Jeffrey" <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] RE: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee >Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:52:21 +0000 > >Cherine, > >An extensive discuss was held today during the >GNSO Council meeting on the rationale used by >the BGC in its recommendation to deny the >reconsideration request. Jonathan will be >reaching out to you with some more details, but >I would strongly encourage the BGC (and the >Board) to review the transcript of that >discussion. I have also attached my notes that >I sent to the Council after my >presentation. The document is written in >outline form as the basis for my presentation >(so please ignore the sentence fragments :)). > >In the document, you will see the three asks >that I have as a result of the discussion which >the GNSO (more detail in the document): > >1. To the ICANN Board (or here the New gTLD >Program Committee): Even if you adopt the >ultimate outcome to reject the reconsideration >request, throw out the rationale. > >2. To the GNSO Council: Move forward with >making our views known to the Board and to >formally recommend changing the Bylaws to >respect the GNSO's role within the ICANN >structure and the Multi-Stakeholder model. > >3. To the ATRT: Review the accountability >measures, including the reconsideration process, >which to date has demonstrated that it is a >meaningless accountability mechanism. > >Thanks for your attention to this matter. The >GNSO Council would certainly like to address >these topics with the Board in Durban (if not earlier) > > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Cherine Chalaby [mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org] >Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 5:07 AM >To: Neuman, Jeff; Jonathan Robinson >Cc: Steve Crocker; 'Bruce Tonkin'; >'council(a)gnso.icann.org'; Cyrus Namazi; Fadi >Chehade; Michelle Bright; Megan Bishop; Amy Stathos; John Jeffrey >Subject: Re: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee > >Jeff and Jonathan, > >Thank you for bringing this matter to our >attention and for clearly stating that the main >issue for the GNSO Council is not so much about >whether the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) >upholds the decision relating to the BGC's >recommendation on the reconsideration request >13-3, but there is a concern about the >documented rationale supporting the recommendation. > >Let me assure you that on the Board and the NGPC >we always thrive at improving the rationale >supporting our decisions. We will therefore >remove the reconsideration request 13-3 from the >agenda of the NGPC meeting scheduled for 11th >June. We are currently holding weekly NGPC >meetings and the next two meetings are on 18th and 25th June. We will >put reconsideration request 13-3 on the agenda >for the 25th June meeting in order to give the >GNSO Council sufficient time to discuss with its >community and to write to the NGPC. > >All the best, >Cherine > > >On 05/06/2013 22:28, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> wrote: > > >Steve, > > > >Yes, thanks for the correction that it will be the new gTLD Program > >Committee that will be considering the BGC recommendation on the 11th > >(2 days before the GNSO Council Meeting). I was planning on doing a > >presentation to the council on the 13th about the recommendation. > > > >In short, the BGC's recommendation basically (1) Assumes that if an > >issue involves "implementation", then there is no reason to look to the > >bottom-up process to get advice on that issue (and if they do get > >advice (even consensus advice), they can ignore it and go with whatever > >ICANN staff recommends; (2) the ICANN Staff/Board is the sole arbiter > >in deciding whether something is Policy or Implementation regardless of > >whether the group charged under the bylaws with developing policies > >(here, the GNSO) believe that the issue does involve policy; and (3) > >there is no meaningful review process or accountability if the > >community believes that ICANN Staff's determination on whether > >something is policy or not is plain wrong. The fact that > >Reconsideration never looks at the substance of the issue at hand, but > >only looks to whether a process was followed is incredibly problematic. > > > >In this recommendation, although the GNSO strongly stated the Trademark > >plus 50 decision was in fact policy (with one group issuing a minority > >opinion) and the ICANN staff initially agreed it could be considered > >policy, ICANN staff later decided on its own that it was implementation. > >Because ICANN Staff is not bound to accept the finding of the GNSO that > >it was policy, and ICANN staff labeled it implementation, ICANN staff was > >free to make the changes as it saw fit (again with no review). So > >essentially the recommendation states: (1) ICANN staff determined that > >it was implementation, (2) there is and can be no review of that > >decision through the reconsideration process, and (3) there is no > >requirement that ICANN staff get input from the community or even > >listen to the community if the ICANN staff > determines that something is implementation. > > > >To add insult to injury, the outside law firm that wrote the > >recommendation wrote it in the style of a litigation brief making such > >ludicrous arguments (which cannot be reviewed), like [and I am > >paraphrasing]: "Yes, the ICANN CEO said previously that this issue CAN > >be considered policy." It goes on to state that the CEO carefully > >chose this word because in saying that it "CAN" be policy, that also > >equally means that it might not be policy and therefore the written > >statement by the CEO was not an admission that it was in fact policy. I > >find this argument insulting. Is this really what we expect of ICANN as > >an multi-stakeholder organization? Namely, to consistently use weasel > >words (reviewed by legal counsel) so that one day if ever questioned on > >a statement he or she made, the legal team can find a loophole and get > >out of a commitment that ICANN makes. Shouldn't we expect more from an > >organization that is supposed to look out for the public interest? > > > >Steve - In the end I could care less about the substantive decision to > >allow the Trademark plus 50 (although a number of people do care about > >this). The decision was made and my registry will implement that > >decision because we have to. However, there were probably 50 other > >ways that ICANN's BGC could have justified the decision it made. I > >would rather have ICANN apologize for the way it handled the situation, > >promise that it won't happen again that way, and then move on to the > >real work of implementing the new gTLDs. Instead, we got an overly > >legalistic brief which is an after-the-fact justification for what they > >did using a rationale that destroys the multi-stakeholder model. > > > >I intend to provide more information during the Council meeting and > >would encourage attendance from the BGC. However, I would ask that the > >New gTLD Program Committee not proceed on making a decision on this > >recommendation until it could be adequately discussed by the community. > > > >Sorry for the long note and I would be happy to give more concrete > >examples from the recommendation. I just ask for more time. > > > >Thanks. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@shinkuro.com] > >Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 3:47 PM > >To: Neuman, Jeff > >Cc: Steve Crocker; Bruce Tonkin; council(a)gnso.icann.org; Cyrus Namazi; > >Fadi Chehadé; Cherine Chalaby (cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org) > >Subject: Re: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee > > > >Jeff, > > > >I think you're asking the New gTLD Program Committee to defer voting on > >the BGC's recommendation. This matter is not in front of the full > >Board, and the full Board isn't meeting until June 27. > > > >That said, I'm curious as to the substance of your objection. Have you > >written anything about it? > > > >Thanks, > > > >Steve > > > >On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:16 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > >wrote: > > > >> Bruce, > >> > >> Am I correct that the Board will be discussing and adopting the BGC's > >>recommendation on the NCSG Reconsideration Request? > >> > >> As you know, the GNSO has scheduled this item to discuss on our next > >>Council call on the 13th (2 days after the scheduled ICANN Board > >>meeting). A number of us on the GNSO completely disagree with the > >>rationale that was used to justify the outcome (even if we do not > >>dispute the outcome). We believe that the BGC's rationale will > >>undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model (as in my > >>previous e-mail to the council which I have attached). > >> > >> We therefore respectfully ask that the ICANN Board delay any decision > >>on this reconsideration request until it has had time to listen to the > >>GNSO Council and its members on our thoughts about this decision. I > >>personally believe if the Board adopts this recommendation (more > >>particularly the rationale for the recommendation), the Board will > >>have not officially put the nail in the coffin for the Reconsideration > >>process as an accountability measure, but will have also the > >>multi-stakeholder bottom up model as we know it. > >> > >> I have included Fadi and Steve (which I have rarely if ever done > >>before) on this e-mail to stress the importance of this issue and plea > >>for the Board to forgo any definitive action on this request until > >>such time that we can be heard. We also ask whether anyone from the > >>BGC could be available to discuss this issue with us on the GNSO > >>Council call. > >> > >> P.S.....I do want to stress that Neustar takes no position as to > >>whether the Trademark Claims plus 50 should or should not be in place > >>as an RPM. Rather, we strongly disagree with the assumptions and > >>fundamentally-flawed rationale in the BGC's recommendation. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> > >> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > >> 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 > >> Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: > >>+1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > >>[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 4:14 AM > >> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > >> Subject: [council] Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee > >> > >> > >> From: > >>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-11jun13 > >>-en > >>.htm > >> > >> > >> 11 June 2013 > >> > >> > >> Consent Agenda: > >> > >> * Approval of Minutes > >> > >> Main Agenda: > >> > >> * BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 > >> > >> * Info Discussion on ALAC Statement on IDN Variants > >> > >> * Plural vs. Singular > >> > >> * Any Other Business > >> > >> <Mail Attachment.eml> > > > >

1 0

Independent Expert - Doodle Poll is now open
by Larisa B. Gurnick June 11, 2013

June 11, 2013

Dear Review Team Members, In accordance with Brian's directions included in the email on 5 June (attached), two Doodle Polls have been set up for you to cast your vote, now that you've had a chance to consider all the information. Doodle Poll #1 - http://doodle.com/g78kukvbpiatk6tg. This Poll includes 6 issues. Doodle Poll #2 - http://doodle.com/brqrchi5qmibpfqb. If you voted in support of issue #1 on the Doodle Poll #1 - Case Studies of PDPs and Processes with regard to ATRT1 advice (Avri), then please select the issues that you would like included in cases studies conducted by an independent expert. This Poll includes 15 issues for possible case studies. Please submit your votes at your earliest convenience, preferably by end of day on Monday, 10 June. Best regards, Larisa 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

3 4

Independent Expert
by Brian Cute June 10, 2013

June 10, 2013

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

7 7

Further reference on Whistleblowing task
by Avri Doria June 9, 2013

June 9, 2013

The section from the pre-AOC One World Trust report on "Independent Review of ICANN’s Accountability and Transparency – Structures and Practices" https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/owt-report-final-2007-en.pdf Recommendation 4.1: ICANN should clearly describe the integrated nature of the Ombudsman, Reconsideration Committee and Independent Review Panel of Board actions. The links between the three functions and their integrated nature need to be properly communicated. 100. While ICANN has three mechanisms for investigating complaints from members of the ICANN community, the organisation does not have a policy or system in place that provides staff with channels through which they can raise complaints in confidentiality and without fear of retaliation. Having such a policy (often referred to as a whistleblower policy) is good practice among global organisations. A whistleblower policy that provides such protections serves as an important means of ensuring accountability to staff as well as preventing fraudulent behaviour, misconduct and corruption within an organisation. 101. The United Nation’s whistleblower policy is an example of good practice. It includes a definition of whistleblowing consistent with good practice and provides multiple channels for reporting violations thus offering safeguards against institutionalized conflict of interest, protection for outside parties, and mandatory discipline for those who retaliated against complainants. To embed the whistleblower policy in the organisation’s culture, the UN also trains staff and senior management on the implementation of the policy. 102. While whistleblower protections already exist under both Californian state law through the California Labour Code and Federal law through the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, ICANN should comply with good practice and develop an organisation-wide whistleblower policy. This would clearly state the protections afforded to staff, provide multiple channels through which a complaint can be made and clearly identify the steps of the complaints process. ---- The idea of Independent Expert might involve OWT to follow up on this recommendation for their evaluation of the program that ICANN instituted in response. Apologies for not having provided all this information by the deadline. avri

1 1

Update on ATRT2 activities and a request
by Brian Cute June 9, 2013

June 9, 2013

Fadi, Attached is a letter agreed to by government members of ATRT2 that will be sent out under their signature as part of outreach tied to the activities of ATRT2. Heather Dryden is assisting in identifying the appropriate addressees with the assistance of Larisa and Alice who are supporting the ATRT2. It is ATRT2's hope that the letter will provide a positive signal to senior level government officials concerning the importance of accountability and transparency work being undertaken by ICANN and serve as an opportunity for them to participate and contribute to the ICANN process. Thank you for conferring with me on this and thanks to Tarek who provided good guidance and suggestions for additional potential outreach by government members of ATRT2. On another matter, as part of its review, ATRT2 would like to review ICANN's Whistle Blower program and procedures. Would you please have a copy of the program and procedures provided to ATRT2 and, while respecting confidentiality where legally required, provide data with respect to the use of the Whistle Blower program since December 31 2010 when ATRT1 made its recommendations to the ICANN Board? Regards, Brian

4 5

Independent Expert SPREADSHEET
by Carlos Raul June 8, 2013

June 8, 2013

Here is my input - I have used Alan Greenbergs revised spreadsheet - All my comments in *BLUE* - 2 Comments in Black are form A. Greenberg that I fully support. *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 > >

1 0

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