[atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study

Sat Jun 22 10:37:55 UTC 2013

Avri,

I was just trying to be polite. i will be as clear as I can write in
English, and will just quote from the justification of my one pager, which
was not meant to be personal.  It goes as follows
:

*In many Internet governance and standards organizations, technical
barriers are beneficial: in the IETF they contribute to meritocratic
evaluation of proposals; in technology development processes they ensure
the quality of contributions; in technical policy making they are a reality
check and ensure operational efficacy.  In each of these, technical
barriers contribute to quality control.  But when engaging with public
policy makers, technical barriers preclude effective engagement and
dialogue, and may foster distrust.  *

*Currently, the mechanisms for evaluating this phenomenon as an outcome are
poorly understood.  An illustration is the current relationship between the
GAC, the Board, and some of its joint working groups (operating principles,
by-laws, PDP).  The Board has placed the GAC in a box and their engagement
through joint WGs is confounded by technical barriers that are not aligned
with the types of outcomes policy makers base their decisions based on.
The result is a body that has a fundamental regulatory role, but that both
denies that role in favor of a poorly articulated .... model of
multi-stakeholderism and that has unintentionally alienated those policy
agents in government that could best help them develop this role.   *

based on that: yes, I would agree that based on that statemnt you can tag
me into our second group if you like. No problem with your own prejudices.
>From that quote, I support a wider external perspective about ICANN, simply
because I'm working for one Government that really tries hard to express
its opinion (see ITRs),

You may want to elaborate on how we can bridge the two groups as per your
clasification.

Cheers
Carlos Raul

2013/6/21 Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>

> Hi,
>
> "with all due respect"? I must be in trouble now!
>
> ....
>
> I beleive all the mechanisms needed for very involved Nation State and GAC
> participation exist are contained in the By-Laws and PDP process as well as
> WG guidelines, it is just that these mechanisms are rarely if ever used.
>
> Others seem to  beleive that Nation States and  GAC are  given no real
> voice in fulfilling their stakeholder mandate in a manner appropriate to
> their definition of their roles and responsibilities.
>
> If we assume that both are right, then what we may have is a mismatch of
> mechanisms and capabilities.  Perhaps that is what will be discovered.
>
> What I think is critical in this, like other questions we ask,  is asking
> the question in a non prejudicial manner.
>
> avri
>
> On 21 Jun 2013, at 08:30, Carlos Raul wrote:
>
> > With all due respect Avri, this is exactly what I consider the problem
> of ATRT1 and I hope we can improve it this time: Its ICANN-centric
> perspective.
> >
> > We have a wider participation of public servants, as the still unsent
> letter shows, and we tend to see ICANNs legitimacy based on its ability to
> convince Governments, every single day, that they are doing their best in
> taking into account its considerations, independently if through (a
> definition) of GAC in the By-laws, or directly from Governments themselves
> or through a meta-definition of public interest.
> >
> > Luckily ICANN has today a CEO that, is taking its outreach to
> Governments very seriously and consulting them more widely than GAC itself
> sometimes does (due to lack of time of course). GAC has a full paragraph
> dedicated in 9.1
> >
> > (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction
> with the Board and making recommendations for improvement to ensure
> effective consideration by ICANN ofGAC input on the public policy aspects
> of the technical coordination of the DNS;
> >
> > For that reason I support Jorgens very diplomatic language. I would be
> more blunt: my reading of 9.1 is that if GAC-BOARD relations are not
> effective, Governments should consider other channels to put their thoughts
> forward.
> >
> > I hope you all have a nice weekend!
> >
> >
> >
> > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> > Skype   carlos.raulg
> > _________
> > Apartado 1571-1000
> > COSTA RICA
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would be more comfortable with a more ICANN centric question, like:
> >
> > - Whether the views of the GAC have been handled appropriately given
> their status as defined in the ICANN bylaws.
> >
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:41, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:
> >
> > > Dear colleagues
> > >
> > > Proposal for a new bullit between 86 and 87 (a 86A):
> > >
> > > - whether in particular the views and advice provided by GAC has been
> duly taken into account given the specific tasks of national governments
> with respect to public policy.
> > >
> > > Best wishes
> > > Jørgen
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

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

Mobile +506 6060 7176
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130622/fa75e6a1/attachment.html>