[atrt2] Independent Expert

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Jun 8 01:57:44 UTC 2013

My assessments and comments are attached.


At 05/06/2013 06:06 PM, Brian Cute wrote:
>Review Team,
>To complete the process of determining whether ATRT2 should engage 
>an Independent Expert, we will proceed with a two-step process:
>                   Step One:  Final discussion of proposed issues 
> for Independent Expert
>On the last full ATRT2 Review Team call, Members who put forward 
>potential issues for Independent Expert work were afforded a minimal 
>amount of time to articulate why their proposed issue were deserving 
>of theengagement of an Independent Expert.  Nor was there an 
>opportunity for other Review Team members to express their views on 
>the candidate issues.
>For the next 72 hours (until 10:00p.m. UTC , Saturday), all Review 
>Team members are asked to put their views forward, by email on the 
>ATRT2 email list, concerning the proposed issues and whether ATRT2 
>should engage an Independent Expert.  Members who offered an issue 
>for consideration are invited to provide justification for their 
>issue(s).  Other Review Team members are invited to support a 
>proposed issue or provide arguments as to why a proposed issue does 
>not merit the work of an Independent Expert. To the extent possible, 
>we do not want this process to become a "beauty contest" so please 
>submit comments that are framed to address only the individual 
>merits of a proposed issue and not a comparison of one proposal to 
>another. The 6 issues under consideration are as follows:
>1. Case Studies of PDPs and Processes with regard to ATRT1 advice (Avri)
>2. Whistle-blower program - Effectiveness and adherence to standards (Avri)
>3. ICANN Finances (Lise)
>4. Case study re: effectiveness of PDP process (Alan)
>5. Public Interest - ecosystem value chain (Carlos)
>6. Metrics (Brian)
>(Note that the ATRT2 government representatives are addressing 
>Jorgen's proposed issue of "Outreach" to governments separately and 
>for that reason has been removed from the list of potential 
>Independent Expert issues.)
>Falling under Issue #1 above, a number of specific case studies have 
>been recommended (byAvri and identified from review of Public 
>Comments received to date).  When the Doodle poll is circulated, 
>Review Team members who support Issue #1 above will also be asked to 
>identify specific case studies to be undertaken by an Independent 
>Expert from the following list:
>1.     New gTLD program
>2.     Applicant Support program
>3.     ICANN Travel policy
>4.     IDN ccTLD PDP
>5.     ASO Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation 
>Mechanisms by the IAN
>6.     Vertical Integration
>7.     Public Interest Commitments
>8.     Trademark Clearing House
>9.     Board - GAC interaction concerning GAC Advise
>10.  External review of the Board
>11.  ICANN's relationship with the registrars
>12.  Independent assessment of the public comments to avoid 
>self-dealing and post hoc rationalization
>13.  Staff interaction and support of business and intellectual 
>property interests
>14.  Gaps in stakeholders' presence in ICANN
>15.  Cross Community efforts, modalities and success
>While all of the issues and potential case studies below may be 
>suitable for review by ATRT2, Members are being asked to identify 
>whether a given issue requires the assistance of anIndependent 
>Expert.  When putting forward your views on the proposed issues, 
>please consider and address the following factors:
>-                 whether the work of an Independent Expert on the 
>issue will provide critical benefit to ATRT2 and its recommendations 
>to the ICANN Board;
>-                 could the issue be effectively addressed with 
>existing ATRT2 resources;
>-                 how significant do you expect this issue to be in 
>terms of impact on ICANN's accountability and transparency;
>-                 how many issues could/should an Independent Expert 
>be asked to undertake (time and money are natural constraints);
>-                 is the issue one that would need to factor into 
>the ATRT2 recommendations or one that would be a stand-alone 
>analysis that, in parallel, is complementary to the ATRT2's work;
>-                 is this issue related to specific mandate of 
>paragraph 9.1 of the Affirmation of Commitments;
>Attached for your review are the "1 pager" documents that were 
>submitted as proposed issues.  Also attached is a spreadsheet that 
>you can use to support or oppose a given issue.  Use of the 
>spreadsheet is at your discretion.  Comments in any format are welcome.
>Step 2:  Doodle Poll
>When the 72 hour period closes, ICANN Staff will circulate a Doodle 
>poll for Review Team members to vote on the issue (or issues) that 
>he or she believes requires the work of an Independent Expert.
>Brian, Avri, Lise and Alan
>Content-Type: application/x-msword; name="Final Discussion of Proposed Issues"
>         for Idependent Expert - 1pagers.docx"
>Content-Description: Final Discussion of Proposed Issues for Idependent
>         Expert - 1pagers.docx
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Final Discussion of Proposed"
>         Issues for Idependent Expert - 1pagers.docx"; size=143323;
>         creation-date="Wed, 05 Jun 2013 18:06:15 GMT";
>         modification-date="Wed, 05 Jun 2013 18:06:15 GMT"
>atrt2 mailing list
>atrt2 at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Independent Expert - spreadsheet-AG.xlsx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 15885 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130607/99a9fe89/IndependentExpert-spreadsheet-AG.xlsx>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list