Re: [atrt2] Justification for Independent Expert/Facilitator on the public interest discussion
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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Sorry Brian, i just saw that my one pager was too sharply cut down to the last page only. I think the first page is also important, while the second has started moving with David Olive's report on public comments. I would be grateful if we use the original version as per attachment, disregarding the middle page. Thanks Carlos Raul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlos Raul <carlosraulg@gmail.com> Date: 2013/6/8 Subject: Re: [atrt2] Justification for Independent Expert/Facilitator on the public interest discussion To: Brian Cute <bcute@pir.org> Cc: ATRT2 <atrt2@icann.org> 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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 -- *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* skype carlos.raulg _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA* Mobile +506 6060 7176
participants (2)
-
Carlos Raul -
Carlos Raul Gutierrez