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

[Alan Greenberg]

My answers are generally in line with David's. RTs issue 
"recommendations" and the AoC requires the Board to "take action". 
Within that scope, I believe there is wriggle room for the Board to 
choose not to implement the intent or the letter of a recommendation, 
but to do so should, at the very least, require a strong reason for 
taking that decision.

You make reference to RT recommendations being akin to those of 
Advisory Committees. As you well know, there are several flavours of 
ACs and they both currently and historically have been treated VERY 
differently. I would like to think that the GAC model is closer to 
what we should expect, than anything else. Our recommendations should 
be honoured and if that is not to be, there should be both 
explanation AND good-faith interaction both understand the issue (on 
both sides) and see if there is any common ground that could be reached.

Alan


At 24/04/2013 10:32 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I hope this is on topic, and wanted to bring it up head-on because I 
>am not sure that all have a similar understanding.
>
>When I first read about the AOC I understood it to be a 'soft' 
>oversight mechanism that was replacing, at least in part, the 
>previous oversight mechanisms as had been part of the MOU and more 
>directly of the previous contract with ICANN.  Of course direct 
>oversight still exists of the IANA functions and of the Verisign 
>operations on the root.  I found this new form of bottom-up 
>multistakeholder oversight quite an exciting possibility and put a 
>lot of faith in its potential.
>
>While I understand that the full nature and practice of the new 
>ICANN oversight mechanism is still unfolding and in some sense 
>experimental as one of the first bottom up multistakeholder 
>oversight mechanisms of its kind, I beleive the review teams are 
>supposed to act as oversight to ICANN: Board, Paid Staff (including 
>CEO and Senior Executives),  and Volunteer organizations.  Due to 
>reputed California legal constraints regarding corporate fiduciary 
>responsibilities of Board of Directors, it is only soft oversight in 
>that its recommendations, especially with regard to financial 
>fiduciary maters, are not legally binding despite the fact that they 
>are normative recommendations.
>
>As I interact with many in the community, including some senior 
>staff members, I gather that my understanding does not match their 
>understanding.  So I am wondering: do I have it wrong?
>
>Do we in ATRT2 have the responsibility to see ourselves as part of 
>an ongoing bottom-up multistakeholder oversight within the 
>organization.  Can we look at the recommendations of the previous 
>review teams as oversight mandates that must be respected and 
>implemented.  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 think getting this straight within this group and between ATRT2 
>and the Governing structure of the organization is critical to the 
>judgements we need to make during the course of our work.   I 
>beleive we, the collective members of the various review groups, are 
>responsible for overseeing the organization we care about so 
>much.  I do not have the impression that the powers that be in ICANN 
>see it that way.
>
>What do others think?
>Do I have it completely wrong?
>Are we just another advisory committee?
>
>avri
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>atrt2 mailing list
>atrt2 at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2