Hi,

I see the GAC as just one voice among the ACs.  I beleive that the Board should receive advice from the ACs, should discuss any disagreements including public comments on the advice, and then should  decide-with-explanation taking the entire community process contribution into account - with the GAC advice as one part of that input.  I beleive that the By-Laws behavior for GAC is really the way they should treat all advice from all ACs.

I do not beleive the GAC should have more of a voice than that.  And while I have an impression the scale may have tiped in favor of 'doing as the GAC says' lately, I am actually not sure how much this is really the case, i.e. will the Board actually do what the GAC tells it to do. Or how much it is fear of what the Board may or not do.

That uncertainty is problematic.  In fact uncertainly is one of the problems the entire ICANN (especially gTLD) process seems to have.  I beleive that uncertainty is also an issue of Accountability and Transparency.

In terms of engaging GAC earlier.  That has to be done.  Again, anecdotally, I beleive that people have often tried to engage GAC with little success.  I am not sure how true this is beyond the anecdotal and so would like to find out more.  How often has the GAC been invited and how have they responded?  I beleive it is possible we will find that the invitations and the modes of participation are a mis-match and we need to explore the issue of how the GAC can participate in the early stages of the process.  We have certainly seen over the years, an increase in the cross participation between other ACs and the SOs. We have even seen some GAC participation, but not at the same levels.

I think it is ok to ask about my 'ideal outcomes' for ATRT2.  Overall I think ATRT1 gave us the impression that the AOC review process might be useful and might work.  I hope we come out of ATRT2 with a view as to how well ATRT1 really worked and come out with reviews and recommendations that represent improvement in Accountability and Transparency at ICANN. 

Thanks for the question.

avri


On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:19, Maria Farrell 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