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. > >