Dear all, For those of you who will attend the ATRT 2 Session during the ccNSO members meeting on Tuesday - The ATRT has added more questions - please, find them below (an updated version will also soon be available at http://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/durban/agenda.htm). Kind regards, Gabi Public Comments ­ Conclusions & Questions 1. The multi-stakeholder model presumes we can get substantive involvement from all stakeholders, including those who do not have financial interests at stake. Is that being achieved effectively, and if not, what does ICANN need to change to be able to do it effectively? 2. There has been a lot of discussion, and some ATRT1 recommendations, related to the Public Comment process. Do you think the process to receive comments is working well, and if not, what needs to be done to fix or change it? For the comments that are received, do you feel that those requested by PDP Working Groups, Staff and the Board are effectively taken into account in ultimate decisions? 3. Do you believe that ICANN’s organization of Advisory Committees and Support Organizations and their respective internal organizations are effective in achieving ICANN’s multi-stakeholder goals, and if not, how should things be changed? 4. Do you have any comments with regard to ICANN’s implementation of the recommendations of the three earlier AoC Review Teams ­ Accountability & Transparency, WHOIS, and Security, Stability & Resiliency? 5. Do you have concerns about ICANN’s overall transparency and accountability, or related issues that are specific to your group? 6. Public comments appear to indicate a concern that there has not been a substantive improvement in accountability and transparency since the ATRT1 Report. What is your impression? What do you recommend we should focus on? 7. Has the Community any specific issues or concerns with other aspects of Security Stability and Resiliency that are outside of DNS specific issue? 8. In regards to public comments, how do Commenters and Staff/Board deal with the practice of orchestrated, high volume from letter commenting (“astro-turfing”)? 9. Does the Community embrace decisions made in regards to IP addresses and AS numbers? 10. How can we ensure that ICANN decisions are embraced or accepted? Do you review the decisions? (If not, why not?) If you don’t embrace or accept ICANN’s decisions, do you feel your opinion was properly understood and considered? 11. Is transparency sacrificed for expedience when the Board has a difficult decision to make? If yes, please provide examples. 12. Is it clear to you that the Board has a dual role as a governance component inside the organization and is the last stop policy organ? [How do you deal with that dual role?] 13. Are the working methodologies of your group fully accountable and transparent? If not, how could they be enhanced or approved. On 7/11/13 2:14 PM, "Gabriella Schittek" <gabriella.schittek@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

For those of you who will participate in the ccNSO members meeting in Durban:

We will meet with the The Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) on Tuesday, 16 July ­ 17:20-17:35 (see agenda http://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/durban/agenda.htm).

The ATRT 2 has prepared some questions that they wish to ask you during this meeting ­ please, see below. These questions have also been posted on the agenda page.

Kind regards,

Gabi

1. The multi-stakeholder model presumes we can get substantive involvement from all stakeholders, including those who do not have financial interests at stake. Is that being achieved effectively, and if not, what does ICANN need to change to be able to do it effectively?

2. There has been a lot of discussion, and some ATRT1 recommendations, related to the Public Comment process. Do you think the process to receive comments is working well, and if not, what needs to be done to fix or change it? For the comments that are received, do you feel that those requested by PDP Working Groups, Staff and the Board are effectively taken into account in ultimate decisions?

3. Do you believe that ICANN¹s organization of Advisory Committees and Support Organizations and their respective internal organizations are effective in achieving ICANN¹s multi-stakeholder goals, and if not, how should things be changed?

4. Do you have any comments with regard to ICANN¹s implementation of the recommendations of the three earlier AoC Review Teams ­ Accountability & Transparency, WHOIS, and Security, Stability & Resiliency?

5. Do you have concerns about ICANN¹s overall transparency and accountability, or related issues that are specific to your group?