In my view yes, it is within scope, and complex. Since the GAC is not, 
say, a tightly-knit stakeholder (hmmm... ok, depending on how tight 
maybe neither are we), how can they have participation in the "various 
levels" defending the point of view of *the* GAC?

I mean, what will be the forms of this participation and representation? 
My impression is that mostly those GAC reps will be observers. No big 
deal. But you might have a better insight on this.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 01/22/2013 03:19 PM, 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
>
> On 22 January 2013 13:33, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[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.
>
>