<div dir="ltr">Hi Avri,<div><br></div><div>what areas of improvement in nomcom for transparency (while there is small steps like the report) and which changes are needed (it is good to start the discussion anyway)</div><div style>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Rafik<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/1/25 Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi,<br>
<br>
Well, Nomcom is still one of the deep dank corners of ICANN that could use a whole lot more Transparency as far as I am concerned. I find it interesting that the reason that GAC could not cooperate with Nomcom was because they are more transparent than the rest of ICANN.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
avri<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:30, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:<br>
<br>
> Years ago we had a problem with the GAC representative in the NomCom. The NomCom works under confidential rules (to protect the candidates). The problem was that the GAC liaison said that he can not speak on behalf of the GAC (as a whole) in the NomCom discussion without consulting the other GAC members (and then breaching the rule of confidentiality). The final decisions was (by the GAC) to have an emtpy GAC seat in the NomCom (up to now). ;.)))<br>
><br>
> w<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
><br>
> Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Brenden Kuerbis<br>
> Gesendet: Do 24.01.2013 16:58<br>
> An: <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
> Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Questions & Concerns for our Representatives on the Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2)<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> <snip><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Part of the problem is structural, in that GAC participants are not "free agents" who can make binding commitments in email list-based working groups - they are merely agents of a hierarchical principal and must go back up the chain of command to get anything approved. Governments mode of operation is literally incompatible with the bottom up process. Literally.<br>
><br>
><br>
> I think it's important to note that this incompatibility with "bottom-up" Internet governance seems to be apparent only when looking at the GAC, not governments in general. Case in point, some USG agencies have been very successful in influencing Internet standards and policies. This is achieved through the act you speak of, delegation. However, these agencies are delegating to private organizations, and individuals affiliated with those organizations engage directly in Internet governance institutions. This has been observed in IETF, ICANN standards and policy outcomes.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> And many of them have multiple responsibilities and are not expert on the policy issues.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> This is very true, and a key difference with the cases of delegation I mention above. Something to think about - what if governments, instead of sending _a_ GAC rep, instead delegated responsibility to a number of specialists, either within an agency or to a private organization?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> So the record belies any nadve view that earlier engagement with the GAC with solve any of the problems associated with its interventions.<br>
><br>
><br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> ><br>
> > anecdotally, I beleive that people have often tried to engage GAC with<br>
> > little success. I am not sure how true this is beyond the anecdotal and<br>
> > so would like to find out more. How often has the GAC been invited and<br>
> > how have they responded? I beleive it is possible we will find that the<br>
> > invitations and the modes of participation are a mis-match and we need<br>
> > to explore the issue of how the GAC can participate in the early stages<br>
> > of the process. We have certainly seen over the years, an increase in<br>
> > the cross participation between other ACs and the SOs. We have even seen<br>
> > some GAC participation, but not at the same levels.<br>
> ><br>
> > I think it is ok to ask about my 'ideal outcomes' for ATRT2. Overall I<br>
> > think ATRT1 gave us the impression that the AOC review process might be<br>
> > useful and might work. I hope we come out of ATRT2 with a view as to<br>
> > how well ATRT1 really worked and come out with reviews and<br>
> > recommendations that represent improvement in Accountability and<br>
> > Transparency at ICANN.<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks for the question.<br>
> ><br>
> > avri<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:19, Maria Farrell wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > > 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<br>
> > ATRT2 to look at: "Enabling engagement of the GAC as early as possible,<br>
> > and at various levels, within the ICANN policy development process".<br>
> > ><br>
> > > What form do you think greater GAC engagement might take earlier in<br>
> > the process, and how would you try to ensure its engagement in the GNSO<br>
> > 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<br>
> > what your 'ideal outcomes' from the ATRT2 might be on this issue.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Thanks and all the best, Maria<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>