[atrt2] Question about the role of AOC Review Teams within ICANN
steve at shinkuro.com
Thu Apr 25 03:08:09 UTC 2013
As you will see from the note I just sent, I guess I line up with David and Alan. But I think attempting to draw a bright line between "review" and "oversight" creates additional problems. The system won't work if we spend all of our time adjudicating roles and authority.
On Apr 25, 2013, at 6:58 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 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.
>> At 24/04/2013 10:32 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 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?
>>> atrt2 mailing list
>>> atrt2 at icann.org
>> atrt2 mailing list
>> atrt2 at icann.org
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
More information about the atrt2