[atrt2] AT-Large discussion paper on ICANN legitimacy challenges and proposals

[Brian Cute]

All,

I would like to "strike while the iron is hot" to address action items
that require immediate attention prior to Beijing.  Here is a list of
items I believe require immediate attention:

1.  List of questions to be put out for Public Comment prior to Beijing.
(Larry offered to draft and circulate for inputs from the team.)

2.  Suggestion: Face-to-face meetings with former Review Team members in
Beijing.  We discussed interviewing former members of the 3 prior Review
Teams as an input to our 3 "known" work streams.  If agreed, we need to
reach out to those former members to schedule the interaction.  Some
invitees may attend Beijing and others may not.  We can certainly conduct
interviews remotely if necessary but getting the invitations out and
scheduling time is the first order of business.

3.  Suggestion: Face-to-face meetings with current chairs of the Advisory
Councils and Supporting Organizations in Beijing.  While we have a
placeholder for an open meeting with the Community in Beijing that we
should take advantage of, we also know that we will want to have
structured interactions with each of the stakeholder bodies in ICANN at
the July meeting in Durban.   It may be useful in Beijing, to meet with
the respective chairs to obtain some preliminary views and to discuss how
to best prepare for our interaction in Durban.  Again, if we wish to meet
with the chairs, we need to put out invitations shortly as ICANN
attendees' calendars are undoubtedly getting booked as we speak.

4.  With respect to the list of issues that we created at the end of Day 2
in Los Angeles (and thank you Avri for taking the mic to guide the team
through the task), we need to make a selection of which issues will become
discrete work streams and require focused work of ATRT2.  While we have a
fairly lengthy list, we also have finite resources and time.  Given the
fact that a complete review of ICANN's implementation of the prior 3
Review Teams' recommendations must be undertaken, we will only be able to
take on a few additional issues/work streams if we hope to undertake the
necessary data gathering, analysis and drafting to deliver soundly
constructed, constructive and useful recommendations.

With respect to the R3 paper discussed by Avri and Steve, I think it is
important first to identify the issues that will be the subject of work
streams and then identify how and in what context we bring papers such as
the R3 paper and others into our deliberations.

I ask for feedback on the suggestions above and I know that Alice and
Charla will be happy to facilitate the outreach for our Beijing meeting.

Regards,
Brian 




On 3/18/13 1:22 PM, "Steve Crocker" <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:

>Avri,
>
>Thanks for forwarding the reference to the R3 paper.  I think it's an
>important paper because it represents the views of several thoughtful,
>senior active members of the community.  I am under the impression this
>does not represent the official position of the ALAC, but I might be
>misremembering.  I thought the ALAC released it as a contribution to the
>community's dialog, which is perfectly appropriate.
>
>To get the discussion started, I'll also offer that I found myself
>disagreeing with some of the suggestions in that paper and unclear about
>what was really meant by other parts.  I'll have to reread the paper to
>summon for the details.
>
>I think it's up to the review team to decide what level of recognition to
>give to this paper.  For example, we might simply reference the paper as
>something we've looked at and not deal with it explicitly.  At the other
>extreme, we might devote an entire chapter to the paper, effectively
>giving it equal status with our charter.  Or we might choose some path in
>between these extremes.  I recommend we first consider the content of the
>paper before deciding how much weight to give it and whether and how to
>respond to it.
>
>Steve 
>
>
>
>On Mar 18, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> In some of the downtime during the meeting last week, I spoke about the
>>ALAC paper on the Legitimacy challenge to ICANN that ALAC had released
>>as a conversation starter.
>> 
>> The reference for that paper is:
>> 
>> At-Large Future Challenges R3 White Paper Workspace* -
>>https://community.icann.org/x/BAEQAg
>> 
>> It is my understanding that this will be a topic of a session in
>>Beijing - not sure when.
>> 
>> At this point I am sending this for information purposes and not making
>>a specific suggestion that it should be input to this group's
>>discussion, though  that may be a reasonable step.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> * I note that I am a member of that group, but that I was not a
>>co-author of the paper.
>> _______________________________________________
>> atrt2 mailing list
>> atrt2 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>atrt2 mailing list
>atrt2 at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2