Dear Maria,

This is indeed a very good question. I am not sure either it falls
completely within the ATRT2 scope, while others  might know,  but it
certainly is an interesting key aspect and deserves to be paid
attention. I would have to think about it thouroughly before I provide
a detailed and informed answer.  Nevertheless, right now as an initial
 reaction when I read your question, I could say that a first thought
that came to my mind has been to visualize the potential threats that
the equal/multi stakeholder model could face (something we definitely
do no want to happen) in case of an early participation at all levels
of the GAC if it was not well-framed, monitored and articulated.

Many have identified key principles governing the good management of
multi-stakeholder initiatives. I have drawn from a pool of 7
principles identified by the Global Knowledge Partnership, the
following ones that I find particularly relevant in the context of
your question:

•Multi-stakeholder ICT partnerships work best when they mutually
reinforce the interests of all partners.
•Successful partnerships are built on complementary competencies and
resources that, in combination, meet the parameters of some strategic
design.
•The resources and competencies contributed to the partnership should
be drawn from as close as possible to the core ‘business’ of the
partner organizations.

In our case, it seems to me that key words are "complementary
competencies and resources" and "core business". We need to understand
what is the core business of the GAC as well as the GAC needs to
understand AND ACCEPT the core business of the GNSO and its
constituencies.

Also, it seems to me that some of our community members need to avoid
seeing the GAC and the government's reps as "the enemy" but rather as
a partner we have to work with,  even if sometimes, we have
contradictory positions.  This is certainly what my focus would be.

That would it for the moment. I hope this helps.

Best regards,








On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Maria Farrell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi, Avri and Marie Laure,
>
> My question is about the Government Advisory Committee's future role.
>
> The GAC's report of its High Level Meeting in Toronto said it wanted ATRT2
> to look at: "Enabling engagement of the GAC as early as possible, and at
> various levels, within the ICANN policy development process".
>
> What form do you think greater GAC engagement might take earlier in the
> process, and how would you try to ensure its engagement in the GNSO and at
> the same time protect the multi-(equal)-stakeholder process?
>
> I hope this question is within scope, i.e. that it's ok to ask you what your
> 'ideal outcomes' from the ATRT2 might be on this issue.
>
> Thanks and all the best, Maria
>
>
> On 22 January 2013 13:33, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> On 21 Jan 2013, at 16:48, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>> > Therefore now have a 24-hour period to ask the two NCSG candidates
>> > questions and to provide them with initial feedback about desired outcomes
>> > for the ATRT (using this list beginning now).
>> >
>>
>>
>> Thanks Robin, for opening this topic.
>>
>> I think that the AOC reviews are among the most important work we do
>> outside of Policy recommendations.  And I think that the ATRT - being
>> responsible for reviewing, and then recommending  improvements on, the
>> accountability and transparency of ICANN is central to any evolution we
>> might someday see ICANN and its ability to become a free standing dynamic
>> organization.
>>
>> Even if this list does not have any specific questions for the two of us
>> who have asked for the NCSG endorsement, I would really like to hear about
>> issues that are currently on people's minds about the specific issues that
>> need to be covered by the upcoming review.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> avri
>>
>> Ps: Dan, I remember that I owe you an answer on Dynamic Organizational
>> Architectures which includes the issue of accountability.  While I am still
>> working on that theoretical answer, in a practical sense, I think that
>> accountable and transparent Accountability and Transparency Reviews, are a
>> key ingredient.
>
>