[atrt2] Proposed Questions to the ICANN Community

[Carlos Raul Gutierrez]

Thank you Larry!

I think the draft is very good and will help our work. The section on
comparing the work of the different reviews teams I think is fine (sections
1-7). Particularly question 1 is a very good starter!

For the section on 9.1 issues (from question 8 on) , while using all of the
same material and structure, I would like to get feedback from a more
specific sub-set of additional questions in case they don´t have specific
cases to bring forward, but only a general feelings.

I think that Board and GAC (9.1 *a) & b)*) are formal bodies and for
legitimacy should be subject to clear checks and balances. I would like to
know what stakeholders think about its *efficiency and accountability*. I
can imagine a sub-set of question to sections 8 & 9 of the draft so as to
get a better impression of the general image of Board and GAC’s work in the
eyes of the community:.

·         Are you aware how the process under which they are
nominated/elected?

·         Do you think they always follow clear rules and proceedings?

·         Do you think they take decisions in a transparent way?

·         Do you have a good sense of their rationale for taking decisions
and giving advice?

·         What should the ATRT2 ask them specifically to change in the way
they normally work?

·         Would any known metrics allow you to better follow up their work?

·         Do you think they should stay for longer/shorter periods of times?

·         Do you see for individual members any source of potential
conflict with the rest of the community?

·         Do your think that there is (since ATRT1) a fair chance for a
revision of their decisions?

On the other hand he multistakeholder policy making process (9.1 *c), d) &
e)*) is where the mandate for the Board emanates from, and I would like to
know what the community thinks about its effectiveness and transparency of
the of the PDP process. Questions under section 11 are already very good
(9.1 d), the best ones I would say. But as with the first list of work
items out of the first LAX meeting, there is very little on public input
(9.1 c) & e) and I would expect us to go much deeper into it:

·         Do you think it is easy to put forward new public inputs? All
year round? When did you use it last?

·         How do you rate ICANNs staff work in processing public inputs? Do
they help the community finding out what the pros and cons of those inputs
are in a CLEAR and transparent way?

·         How do you think the process can be improved?

·         Do you embrace the decisions of the Board after an internal
review of it in your community and/or working group?

·         Do you feel that the GAC is doing a good job advising the board?

·         Have you asked for a review of Board decision? Which one?

·         Do you think communication *between* the different SO/ACs on
public inputs is sufficient and transparent?

·         Do you think there is a fair chance for discussions between the
different SO/AC during the public meetings

·         Do you think some communities have a larger say than others?

·         How could the review process improve communication between the
different stakeholders groups?

·         How should the ICANN community improve tis outreach to the larger
internet community?

Wish you all a nice Sunday



Carlos Raul




2013/3/22 Larry Strickling <LStrickling at ntia.doc.gov>

> ATRT2,
>
> As promised at last week's meeting, attached is a draft list of proposed
> questions to the ICANN community to collect information for us to use to
> establish the scope and work program for our review effort.  Please provide
> comments and reaction to the list and I hope we can finalize these on our
> call next week.
>
> Larry Strickling
>
> _______________________________________________
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>
>


-- 
*Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez*
skype carlos.raulg
_________
Apartado 1571-1000
*COSTA RICA*

Mobile +506 6060 7176
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130324/21faff94/attachment.html>