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

Brian Cute bcute at pir.org
Mon Mar 18 20:30:35 UTC 2013


You are correct.  We talked about reaching out directly to ATRT2
candidates.  Thank you for catching it but I also don't recall a consensus
on whether or how to do that.  I recall that, at a minimum, a direct email
from the ATRT2 to the candidates along with the Public Comment questions
was a suggestion that seemed to garner agreement.


On 3/18/13 4:17 PM, "David Conrad" <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

>On Mar 18, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Brian Cute <bcute at pir.org> wrote:
>> 2.  Suggestion: Face-to-face meetings with former Review Team members in
>> Beijing. 
>I would agree this would be useful.  We also discussed talking with other
>the other applicants to ATRT2, but I don't recall if we had consensus on
>whether to do that.
>> 3.  Suggestion: Face-to-face meetings with current chairs of the
>> Councils and Supporting Organizations in Beijing.
>Also useful I think.
>Related, do we need to do anything (e.g., publicize) the Beijing public
>session on Wednesday?
>> 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
>> discrete work streams and require focused work of ATRT2.
>Looking at the spreadsheet Charla sent out, I believe at least one item
>is missing: Demi had raised the issue of IPv6 and I thought we discussed
>adding IP (v4 and v6) address policy accountability/transparency (A/T) to
>the list.
>In thinking about the item on metrics (row 2 on the spreadsheet), I agree
>(I think) with Alan that it should be a cross-cutting (plum) issue:
>metrics should be associated with each of the work streams so
>improvements can be easily understood/measured and areas where work is
>needed can be identified.  I also believe reviewing methods of continual
>assessment (row 3) is cross-cutting too.  That is, metrics and continual
>assessment methods are related and should be applied to each of the work
>Of the items listed under legitimacy (row 4), I'm interpreting it to be
>"efforts towards improving perception of legitimacy" and as a result,
>would restate the sub-bullets to:
>- A/T of outreach efforts to governments
>- A/T of outreach efforts to the larger Internet community
>- A/T of efforts towards internationalization of outreach
>- A/T of ICANN's financials (I'd actually generalize to all ICANN's
>financials, not just new gTLD program related financials)
>- A/T of ICANN's mechanisms to prevent capture
>On the R3 paper, I just did a quick scan of the document and think it
>identifies a number of interesting areas for us to consider. I'll read in
>more detail and provide thoughts in a separate message.

More information about the atrt2 mailing list