[atrt2] Fwd: Justification for Independent Expert/Facilitator on the public interest discussion

Carlos Raul Gutierrez crg at isoc-cr.org
Sat Jun 8 17:41:18 UTC 2013

Sorry Brian,

i just saw that my one pager was too sharply cut down to the last page
only. I think the first page is also important, while the second has
started moving with David Olive's report on public comments. I would be
grateful if we use the original version as per attachment, disregarding the
middle page.


Carlos Raul

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carlos Raul <carlosraulg at gmail.com>
Date: 2013/6/8
Subject: Re: [atrt2] Justification for Independent Expert/Facilitator on
the public interest discussion
To: Brian Cute <bcute at pir.org>
Cc: ATRT2 <atrt2 at icann.org>

Thank you Brian for the opportunity. My justification as per attachment has
great advantage in hindsight over the original one pager, that many useful
discussion have taken place since I wrote it. In particular

   - my discussions with Steve Crocker over the BCG 2008 report on the
   Board (Olivier: I hope it is on the wiki)
   - lively activity in the GAC over the last few weeks as we look forward
   to Durban
   - Brain and Olivier's great practical contributions in the Work-streams
   calls over the last few days, to make us start thinking about our own ideas

The proposal relates directly to many other ideas, that I directly support

   - the letter to Governments (ongoing)
   - the case study on PDP effectiveness (Alan)
   - the need for metrics (Brian)

So I will refer in the spreadsheet to the other 3 proposals only, otherwise
I wont make the deadline...........

Best regards and a nice Sunday to all of you!

*Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez*
Skype   carlos.raulg
Apartado 1571-1000

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Brian Cute <bcute at pir.org> 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.
> Regards,
> Brian, Avri, Lise and Alan
> _______________________________________________
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

atrt2 mailing list
atrt2 at icann.org

*Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez*
skype carlos.raulg
Apartado 1571-1000

Mobile +506 6060 7176
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130608/59e4cc71/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ARTR2-discussion_public_interest.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 81042 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130608/59e4cc71/ARTR2-discussion_public_interest.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CRG_one_pagers.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 299383 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130608/59e4cc71/CRG_one_pagers.pdf>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list