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

[crg at isoc-cr.org]

I like your questions very much Avri!

In traditional terms the Board should oversee, and the Corporation should act. But it is not so clear in this case (policy vs. Implementation). The board may be doing two things at the same time.....and "the staff" eufemism not responding for the whole Corporation as such.

But we could push rewind and play it over again, and instead of a hierarchical oversight approach, let's try to play it with a horizontal "check and balances" one between the public interest (users) on the one hand and the "decision makers/operative agents (registries/registrars)" on the other (money making stakeholders in terms of one of our guests this morning call). 

Maybe we can then avoid this dead end angst of yours and make progress with our work

Cheers

Carlos Raul
Enviado desde un dispositivo Blackberry® de Kolbi

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
Sender: atrt2-bounces at icann.org
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:46:44 
To: ATRT2<atrt2 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [atrt2] Question about the role of AOC Review Teams within ICANN

Hi,  

If we are an advisory within the oversight, then who is it within the oversight mechanism that we advise.  Certainly the Board cannot be its own oversight, and I did not think that the NTIA was in that oversight role anymore - though of course both NTIA and the Board participate in this oversight mechanism, in this case as equals according to our collective decision.

Also you mention "component of a broader oversight mechanism, one that incorporates oversight input from other stakeholders."  Who or what does this refer to?

I apologize for the philosophical angst that is confusing me and perhaps causing confusion for others of you, but if we, the ongoing process of AOC review teams, are not the normative oversight mechanism for ICANN and its Board etc, then who is?  

Recognizing that the CA States Attorney, of course, remains the corporate oversight.

I think understanding the vantage point from which we make our judgements is critical to the making of those judgements.  I also think that recording this in our product will be an important part of our effort.

avri



On 25 Apr 2013, at 13:26, David Conrad wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> On Apr 24, 2013, at 7:58 PM, 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?  
> 
> In my view, AOC teams provide an (or perhaps more accurately 'the primary') advisory function within ICANN's oversight mechanism. Beyond the issue that Steve raises about oversight of AOC review teams and the issue Demi raises about conflicting recommendations from the different teams (and ignoring the legal question of fiduciary responsibility you raised), I believe the bottom-up multi-stakeholder governance model would suggest AOC review teams are a component of a broader oversight mechanism, one that incorporates oversight input from other stakeholders. 
> 
> However, as mentioned in another note, I'm not well versed in the history/lore of AOC review teams so my views may well be mistaken.
> 
> Regards,
> -drc
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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