AT-Large discussion paper on ICANN legitimacy challenges and proposals
Hi, In some of the downtime during the meeting last week, I spoke about the ALAC paper on the Legitimacy challenge to ICANN that ALAC had released as a conversation starter. The reference for that paper is: At-Large Future Challenges R3 White Paper Workspace* - https://community.icann.org/x/BAEQAg It is my understanding that this will be a topic of a session in Beijing - not sure when. At this point I am sending this for information purposes and not making a specific suggestion that it should be input to this group's discussion, though that may be a reasonable step. avri * I note that I am a member of that group, but that I was not a co-author of the paper.
Avri, Thanks for forwarding the reference to the R3 paper. I think it's an important paper because it represents the views of several thoughtful, senior active members of the community. I am under the impression this does not represent the official position of the ALAC, but I might be misremembering. I thought the ALAC released it as a contribution to the community's dialog, which is perfectly appropriate. To get the discussion started, I'll also offer that I found myself disagreeing with some of the suggestions in that paper and unclear about what was really meant by other parts. I'll have to reread the paper to summon for the details. I think it's up to the review team to decide what level of recognition to give to this paper. For example, we might simply reference the paper as something we've looked at and not deal with it explicitly. At the other extreme, we might devote an entire chapter to the paper, effectively giving it equal status with our charter. Or we might choose some path in between these extremes. I recommend we first consider the content of the paper before deciding how much weight to give it and whether and how to respond to it. Steve On Mar 18, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
In some of the downtime during the meeting last week, I spoke about the ALAC paper on the Legitimacy challenge to ICANN that ALAC had released as a conversation starter.
The reference for that paper is:
At-Large Future Challenges R3 White Paper Workspace* - https://community.icann.org/x/BAEQAg
It is my understanding that this will be a topic of a session in Beijing - not sure when.
At this point I am sending this for information purposes and not making a specific suggestion that it should be input to this group's discussion, though that may be a reasonable step.
avri
* I note that I am a member of that group, but that I was not a co-author of the paper. _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
All, I would like to "strike while the iron is hot" to address action items that require immediate attention prior to Beijing. Here is a list of items I believe require immediate attention: 1. List of questions to be put out for Public Comment prior to Beijing. (Larry offered to draft and circulate for inputs from the team.) 2. Suggestion: Face-to-face meetings with former Review Team members in Beijing. We discussed interviewing former members of the 3 prior Review Teams as an input to our 3 "known" work streams. If agreed, we need to reach out to those former members to schedule the interaction. Some invitees may attend Beijing and others may not. We can certainly conduct interviews remotely if necessary but getting the invitations out and scheduling time is the first order of business. 3. Suggestion: Face-to-face meetings with current chairs of the Advisory Councils and Supporting Organizations in Beijing. While we have a placeholder for an open meeting with the Community in Beijing that we should take advantage of, we also know that we will want to have structured interactions with each of the stakeholder bodies in ICANN at the July meeting in Durban. It may be useful in Beijing, to meet with the respective chairs to obtain some preliminary views and to discuss how to best prepare for our interaction in Durban. Again, if we wish to meet with the chairs, we need to put out invitations shortly as ICANN attendees' calendars are undoubtedly getting booked as we speak. 4. With respect to the list of issues that we created at the end of Day 2 in Los Angeles (and thank you Avri for taking the mic to guide the team through the task), we need to make a selection of which issues will become discrete work streams and require focused work of ATRT2. While we have a fairly lengthy list, we also have finite resources and time. Given the fact that a complete review of ICANN's implementation of the prior 3 Review Teams' recommendations must be undertaken, we will only be able to take on a few additional issues/work streams if we hope to undertake the necessary data gathering, analysis and drafting to deliver soundly constructed, constructive and useful recommendations. With respect to the R3 paper discussed by Avri and Steve, I think it is important first to identify the issues that will be the subject of work streams and then identify how and in what context we bring papers such as the R3 paper and others into our deliberations. I ask for feedback on the suggestions above and I know that Alice and Charla will be happy to facilitate the outreach for our Beijing meeting. Regards, Brian On 3/18/13 1:22 PM, "Steve Crocker" <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for forwarding the reference to the R3 paper. I think it's an important paper because it represents the views of several thoughtful, senior active members of the community. I am under the impression this does not represent the official position of the ALAC, but I might be misremembering. I thought the ALAC released it as a contribution to the community's dialog, which is perfectly appropriate.
To get the discussion started, I'll also offer that I found myself disagreeing with some of the suggestions in that paper and unclear about what was really meant by other parts. I'll have to reread the paper to summon for the details.
I think it's up to the review team to decide what level of recognition to give to this paper. For example, we might simply reference the paper as something we've looked at and not deal with it explicitly. At the other extreme, we might devote an entire chapter to the paper, effectively giving it equal status with our charter. Or we might choose some path in between these extremes. I recommend we first consider the content of the paper before deciding how much weight to give it and whether and how to respond to it.
Steve
On Mar 18, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
In some of the downtime during the meeting last week, I spoke about the ALAC paper on the Legitimacy challenge to ICANN that ALAC had released as a conversation starter.
The reference for that paper is:
At-Large Future Challenges R3 White Paper Workspace* - https://community.icann.org/x/BAEQAg
It is my understanding that this will be a topic of a session in Beijing - not sure when.
At this point I am sending this for information purposes and not making a specific suggestion that it should be input to this group's discussion, though that may be a reasonable step.
avri
* I note that I am a member of that group, but that I was not a co-author of the paper. _______________________________________________ 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
Brian, On Mar 18, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Brian Cute <bcute@pir.org> wrote:
2. Suggestion: Face-to-face meetings with former Review Team members in Beijing.
I would agree this would be useful. We also discussed talking with other the other applicants to ATRT2, but I don't recall if we had consensus on whether to do that.
3. Suggestion: Face-to-face meetings with current chairs of the Advisory Councils and Supporting Organizations in Beijing.
Also useful I think. Related, do we need to do anything (e.g., publicize) the Beijing public session on Wednesday?
4. With respect to the list of issues that we created at the end of Day 2 in Los Angeles (and thank you Avri for taking the mic to guide the team through the task), we need to make a selection of which issues will become discrete work streams and require focused work of ATRT2.
Looking at the spreadsheet Charla sent out, I believe at least one item is missing: Demi had raised the issue of IPv6 and I thought we discussed adding IP (v4 and v6) address policy accountability/transparency (A/T) to the list. In thinking about the item on metrics (row 2 on the spreadsheet), I agree (I think) with Alan that it should be a cross-cutting (plum) issue: metrics should be associated with each of the work streams so improvements can be easily understood/measured and areas where work is needed can be identified. I also believe reviewing methods of continual assessment (row 3) is cross-cutting too. That is, metrics and continual assessment methods are related and should be applied to each of the work streams. Of the items listed under legitimacy (row 4), I'm interpreting it to be "efforts towards improving perception of legitimacy" and as a result, would restate the sub-bullets to: - A/T of outreach efforts to governments - A/T of outreach efforts to the larger Internet community - A/T of efforts towards internationalization of outreach - A/T of ICANN's financials (I'd actually generalize to all ICANN's financials, not just new gTLD program related financials) - A/T of ICANN's mechanisms to prevent capture On the R3 paper, I just did a quick scan of the document and think it identifies a number of interesting areas for us to consider. I'll read in more detail and provide thoughts in a separate message. Regards, -drc
David, You are correct. We talked about reaching out directly to ATRT2 candidates. Thank you for catching it but I also don't recall a consensus on whether or how to do that. I recall that, at a minimum, a direct email from the ATRT2 to the candidates along with the Public Comment questions was a suggestion that seemed to garner agreement. Brian On 3/18/13 4:17 PM, "David Conrad" <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
Brian,
On Mar 18, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Brian Cute <bcute@pir.org> wrote:
2. Suggestion: Face-to-face meetings with former Review Team members in Beijing.
I would agree this would be useful. We also discussed talking with other the other applicants to ATRT2, but I don't recall if we had consensus on whether to do that.
3. Suggestion: Face-to-face meetings with current chairs of the Advisory Councils and Supporting Organizations in Beijing.
Also useful I think.
Related, do we need to do anything (e.g., publicize) the Beijing public session on Wednesday?
4. With respect to the list of issues that we created at the end of Day 2 in Los Angeles (and thank you Avri for taking the mic to guide the team through the task), we need to make a selection of which issues will become discrete work streams and require focused work of ATRT2.
Looking at the spreadsheet Charla sent out, I believe at least one item is missing: Demi had raised the issue of IPv6 and I thought we discussed adding IP (v4 and v6) address policy accountability/transparency (A/T) to the list.
In thinking about the item on metrics (row 2 on the spreadsheet), I agree (I think) with Alan that it should be a cross-cutting (plum) issue: metrics should be associated with each of the work streams so improvements can be easily understood/measured and areas where work is needed can be identified. I also believe reviewing methods of continual assessment (row 3) is cross-cutting too. That is, metrics and continual assessment methods are related and should be applied to each of the work streams.
Of the items listed under legitimacy (row 4), I'm interpreting it to be "efforts towards improving perception of legitimacy" and as a result, would restate the sub-bullets to:
- A/T of outreach efforts to governments - A/T of outreach efforts to the larger Internet community - A/T of efforts towards internationalization of outreach - A/T of ICANN's financials (I'd actually generalize to all ICANN's financials, not just new gTLD program related financials) - A/T of ICANN's mechanisms to prevent capture
On the R3 paper, I just did a quick scan of the document and think it identifies a number of interesting areas for us to consider. I'll read in more detail and provide thoughts in a separate message.
Regards, -drc
Brian, et al, I suggested setting up a handful of calls specifically to listen to the views of the unselected ATRT2 candidates. There are roughly two dozen people who applied who weren't chosen. I haven't talked to any of them, but I expect many of them had specific thoughts to share about accountability and transparency, so I thought it would be a good idea to listen to them. Also, I'd like to give them a bit more attention than they might get by sending comments in through the public comment process. I don't think we have enough time in Beijing to interview a significant number of them in person. Instead, I proposed that we hold a handful of listening calls specifically to listen to them. We could arrange a small number of calls, say 3 or 4, and invite them to sign up for one of them. A small team of us would then listen to them. Their names are all public, so there's not much of an issue about privacy. And since we're publishing our meetings and email anyway and since our raison d'être is transparency, I don't think they'll mind sharing the call with others. We can get some or perhaps even all of these calls completed before Beijing. This will be helpful in reducing the number of things we have to do in Beijing and it will treat the unselected candidates with a specific courtesy. And, of course, we may get some very thoughtful and specific inputs that will help the effort. Thanks, Steve On Mar 18, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Brian Cute <bcute@pir.org> wrote:
David,
You are correct. We talked about reaching out directly to ATRT2 candidates. Thank you for catching it but I also don't recall a consensus on whether or how to do that. I recall that, at a minimum, a direct email from the ATRT2 to the candidates along with the Public Comment questions was a suggestion that seemed to garner agreement.
Brian
On 3/18/13 4:17 PM, "David Conrad" <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
Brian,
We also discussed talking with other the other applicants to ATRT2, but I don't recall if we had consensus on whether to do that.
participants (4)
-
Avri Doria -
Brian Cute -
David Conrad -
Steve Crocker