[atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study

Avri Doria avri at ella.com
Fri Jun 21 16:11:41 UTC 2013


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





More information about the atrt2 mailing list