Dear all, I failed to join the call because of my workload in the Ministry. I will get the picture from Feng to catch up the discussion. Best regards, Xinsheng -----邮件原件----- 发件人: workstream4-atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:workstream4-atrt2-bounces@icann.org] 代表 Fiona Asonga 发送时间: 2013年6月4日 23:38 收件人: workstream4-atrt2@icann.org 主题: [Work Stream 4 ATRT 2] Proposed Agenda Hallo All, I hope you are well. For today's conference call. I propose the following agenda: Proposed Agenda 1. Confirmation of Attendance 2. Review and consider out put of previous call 3. Review and consider current documents and additional input for the work stream 4. Allocation of reading assignments 5. A.O.B I hope you all had a chance to review the notes of the previous call below: New Issues: - Looking at the recommendations of the three other groups – ICANN’s interpretation of review team recommendations – ICANN’s implementation of the recommendations. Asking the question: “Does it satisfy the standard outlined in the affirmation?” - Review the Board and staff process used to review, implement and oversee recommendations of review teams. - Review actions of the Board and staff in ensuring public interest - [cross cutting] Metrics, success criteria. How processes can be verified in an accountable and transparent way. (Olivier suggested that this issue may be considered specifically by WS 4) - [cross cutting] Review methods for continual assessment - [cross cutting] Accountability + Transparency = Legitimacy towards Governments and the larger Internet. How is ICANN outreach doing? Where it going? (Joergen will prepare a short paper regarding Accountaibility +Transaparency = Legitimacy issue) - [cross cutting] Efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy - [cross cutting] Transparency as a default condition - [cross cutting] How ICANN can be effective and efficient while improving full multi-stakeholder participation, accountability and transparency. Questions for staff and Board: 1. What processes have been established for implementing and overseeing recommendations of the review teams? 2. What did you learn? 3. What worked well? What did not work well? What adjustments had to be made? 4. What improvements were made in the subsequent review processes? 5. How did staff and Board ensure that public interest was addressed after the implementation was completed? Kind regards Fiona _______________________________________________ workstream4-atrt2 mailing list workstream4-atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/workstream4-atrt2