Thanks Avri for remembering my prior questions.  There is a certain poetic
resonance to the idea of "accountable and transparent Accountability and
Transparency Reviews."  :-)


As for the GAC role, can the more veteran members here review for us what
the GAC was supposed to accomplish when it was first incorporated into
ICANN's policy-making structure?

My gut sense is that it was simply a way to allow governments to weigh in
on GNSO policy sort of as a last step before Board consideration --
perhaps with enough weight that in serious cases policy could be thrown
back to GNSO for reconsideration?  But was the idea to try to hold off GAC
(i.e., politics) to a large extent and first try to let the consensus
process work its way through?

Of course, there is a lot of implicit politics in the consensus process,
and so it's probably not accurate to see the consensus process as a pure
rational dynamic devoid of power (i.e., political) considerations.

Acknowledging the politics inherent in the current (and perhaps any)
implementation of the consensus process, the devil's advocate suggests
that GAC might as well get involved earlier.  On the other hand, even if
purity is not an option, at least we might push back as much as possible
against politics entering the policy process too soon.

What I'd like to see is a more detailed discussion of this in the context
of actual ICANN policy structures.  I haven't been directly enough
involved recently to evaluate how things actually work in practice.

Dan


-- 
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



On Tue, January 22, 2013 10:50 am, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Excellent question, Maria!
> I would follow up and ask whether there is any way to put more
> well-defined and enforceable boundaries around GAC "advice" so that it
> does not become a parallel and competing policy development process that
> negates the work of the GNSO.
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Maria Farrell
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Questions & Concerns for our
> Representatives on the Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2)
>
> 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.
>
>