<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Excellent question, Maria!
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">I would follow up and ask whether there is any way to put more well-defined and enforceable boundaries around GAC “advice” so that it does not become a parallel and
competing policy development process that negates the work of the GNSO. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Maria Farrell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:20 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Questions & Concerns for our Representatives on the Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi, Avri and Marie Laure,<br>
<br>
My question is about the Government Advisory Committee's future role.<br>
<br>
The GAC's report of its High Level Meeting in Toronto said it wanted ATRT2 to look at: "Enabling engagement of the GAC as early as possible, and at various levels, within the ICANN policy development process".
<br>
<br>
What form do you think greater GAC engagement might take earlier in the process, and how would you try to ensure its engagement in the GNSO and at the same time protect the multi-(equal)-stakeholder process?<br>
<br>
I hope this question is within scope, i.e. that it's ok to ask you what your 'ideal outcomes' from the ATRT2 might be on this issue.<br>
<br>
Thanks and all the best, Maria<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 22 January 2013 13:33, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On 21 Jan 2013, at 16:48, Robin Gross wrote:<br>
<br>
> Therefore now have a 24-hour period to ask the two NCSG candidates questions and to provide them with initial feedback about desired outcomes for the ATRT (using this list beginning now).<br>
><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks Robin, for opening this topic.<br>
<br>
I think that the AOC reviews are among the most important work we do outside of Policy recommendations. And I think that the ATRT - being responsible for reviewing, and then recommending improvements on, the accountability and transparency of ICANN is central
to any evolution we might someday see ICANN and its ability to become a free standing dynamic organization.<br>
<br>
Even if this list does not have any specific questions for the two of us who have asked for the NCSG endorsement, I would really like to hear about issues that are currently on people's minds about the specific issues that need to be covered by the upcoming
review.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<span style="color:#888888"><br>
<span class="hoenzb">avri</span><br>
</span><br>
Ps: Dan, I remember that I owe you an answer on Dynamic Organizational Architectures which includes the issue of accountability. While I am still working on that theoretical answer, in a practical sense, I think that accountable and transparent Accountability
and Transparency Reviews, are a key ingredient.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>