Carlos, colleagues, not going deeper into the essence of the problem mentioned by Avri and Lise, I have to confirm, that GAC is seen as a very innefficient mechanism by (at least part of) post-Soviet governments in my region. While a lot of people, including those whom I know well personally, and/or who are GAC members, do not share such views. So, very unfortunately, I don't have my own answer to the question, what exactly is wrong: the model itself (=> needs the revision of AoC), the interaction between different ICANN's bodies and divisions, including the staff and the Board (needs certain intervention by the Board and/or the management of ICANN), or the perception of GAC members or its current composition (=> needs certain internal decisions inside GAC)? Maybe, it could be reasonable to discuss this problem separately. Kind regards, Michael 2013/6/21 Carlos Raul <carlosraulg@gmail.com>
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 <alan.greenberg@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: atrt2-bounces@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 atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2