[atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study

Carlos Raúl G. crg at isoc-cr.org
Fri Jun 21 16:01:27 UTC 2013


Dear Michael! 

Latin America is effectively underrepresented in GAC. 

So even if we get to analyze GAC effectiveness in the PDP, we probably have to discuss a few more GAC issues under 9.1 b) in ATRT2

Have a nice weekend
Carlos Raul

Sent from my iPhone

On 21/06/2013, at 07:40, Michael Yakushev <m.yakushev at gmail.com> wrote:

> Carlos, colleagues,
> not going deeper into the essence of the problem mentioned by Avri and Lise, I have to confirm, that GAC is seen as a very innefficient mechanism by (at least part of) post-Soviet governments in my region. While a lot of people, including those whom I know well personally, and/or who are GAC members, do not share such views.
> So, very unfortunately, I don't have my own answer to the question, what exactly is wrong: 
>    the model itself (=> needs the revision of AoC), 
>    the interaction between different ICANN's bodies and divisions, including the staff and the Board (needs certain intervention by the Board and/or the management of ICANN), or 
>    the perception of GAC members or its current composition  (=> needs certain internal decisions inside GAC)?
> Maybe, it could be reasonable to discuss this problem separately.
> Kind regards,
> Michael
> 
> 2013/6/21 Carlos Raul <carlosraulg at gmail.com>
>> if everything you said is true, the absolute absence of GAC advice is enough to ring all the bells Allan!!!!
>> If GAC is innefective, do we need another GAC model? GA without a "C"?
>> 
>> 
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> Skype   carlos.raulg
>> _________
>> Apartado 1571-1000
>> COSTA RICA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>> Lise,
>>> 
>>> As I said in the meeting, if we cite the GAC
>>> explicitly, we will also need to add whether that
>>> any GAC advice/views were received in a timely manner.
>>> 
>>> I did not call out the GAC explicitly when I
>>> drafted this, because I was aware of the answer.
>>> On the PDP process that we will be evaluating, I
>>> do not believe that we have received any GAC
>>> advice or even, had the benefit of general views
>>> during the process. There may be some subtle
>>> examples of views being known, but I can't be
>>> sure. I cannot recal any intervention of the GAC
>>> AFTER the PDP was completed and passed to the
>>> Board where the GAC objected. Perhaps Avri has a memory of such an occurrence.
>>> 
>>> Note that the new gTLD PDP was before the period
>>> we are reviewing, since it was a completely
>>> different process, the IGO/INGO PDP is not yet
>>> completed, and there has been no completed PDP on
>>> Whois during that period either.
>>> 
>>> Alan
>>> 
>>> At 21/06/2013 05:26 AM, Lise Fuhr wrote:
>>> >Hi all,
>>> >
>>> >I think that Avri´s version changes the focus too much away from the purpose
>>> >of Jørgen's text, a purpose that it  is my understanding that there were
>>> >support to at the conference call.
>>> >
>>> >If we only look at GAC's status as defined in ICANN's bylaws the scope is
>>> >much narrower and we will not review if there are any needs to change the
>>> >bylaws or other processes but only if ICANN is complying to the existing
>>> >bylaws in this matter.
>>> >
>>> >So I find we should keep Jørgen's wording.
>>> >
>>> >Best,
>>> >Lise
>>> >
>>> >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>>> >Fra: atrt2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af
>>> >Avri Doria
>>> >Sendt: 20. juni 2013 20:21
>>> >Cc: ATRT2
>>> >Emne: Re: [atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study
>>> >
>>> >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
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130621/a50248cb/attachment.html>


More information about the atrt2 mailing list