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

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Thu Apr 25 02:58:42 UTC 2013


Do I understand correctly that you and David beleive that the AOC review teams collectively are not an oversight mechanism but rather an advisory function?  

For my part, I beleive that is consistent with the reaction of ICANN Staff and the Board, but that it is not consistent with the mandate.  I have only just started reading the Froomkin chapter, but I am sure it will educate me as his work always does.  So I will get back to this conversation once I finished reading.  I just wanted to make sure I was understanding you correctly.


On 24 Apr 2013, at 20:56, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

More information about the atrt2 mailing list