[atrt2] Question about the role of AOC Review Teams within ICANN

[David Conrad]

Avri,

On Apr 24, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> I hope this is on topic,

I think it is.  I believe it is important to get clarity on this issue.

> Do we in ATRT2 have the responsibility to see ourselves as part of an ongoing bottom-up multistakeholder oversight within the organization.  

I think so.

> Can we look at the recommendations of the previous review teams as oversight mandates that must be respected and implemented.  

I think "must be respected and implemented" is too strong. Not entirely sure what you mean by "respected", but I see the recommendations as what the review team(s) believed at the time would improve ICANN's accountability and transparency. However, I do not believe the review team(s) are omniscient and as such I believe implementation of recommendations must be informed by experience, practicality, cost effectiveness, timeliness, etc.

> Or does a prevailing impression I get from many on senior staff and some on the Board that these are recommendation that like the recommendations of Advisory Committees: only advisory and ignorable.

I guess my view, not being fully versant in ATRT history/lore, is that the recommendations provided by the ATRT are advisory.  However, perhaps more so than with other advise staff/board receive, if the ATRT recommendations are ignored, there would be negative implications.  

Perhaps as an aside, right now in SSAC, we're dealing with this issue in the sense that the SSAC has provided a number of recommendations to the ICANN board on the new gTLD program and there are questions as to the implementation status of some of those recommendations. I personally believe that if an advisory committee recommendation is not followed, an explanation as to the rationale/justification for not following the recommendation should be published, allowing for public comment and perhaps something like a reconsideration process. 

Regards,
-drc