[atrt2] Question about the role of AOC Review Teams within ICANN
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Thu Apr 25 02:58:42 UTC 2013
Hi,
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.
avri
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.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 24/04/2013 10:32 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
More information about the atrt2
mailing list