ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] QUESTIONS in preparation for - GNSO><ATRT2 - Sun, 14 July 12:00-13:00

  • To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] QUESTIONS in preparation for - GNSO><ATRT2 - Sun, 14 July 12:00-13:00
  • From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 06:14:03 -0700
  • Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac59b1YV/CRKh2xeRny4ki6yUgmd0g==
  • Thread-topic: QUESTIONS in preparation for - GNSO><ATRT2 - Sun, 14 July 12:00-13:00

Dear All,

Please find a set of questions the ATRT2 prepared in anticipation of their 
Durban interactions.

Please note that the ATRT 2 welcomes any input the GNSO may have. The questions 
were prepared to help focus attention on particular areas of interest.
The ATRT2 looks forward to their session with the GNSO scheduled for Sunday, 14 
July - 12:00-13:00.



1.     The ATRT2 is seeking to engage an Independent Expert to assess whether 
the GNSO PDP process is effective for developing gTLD policy within ICANN's 
multi-stakeholder environment.  In your view, is the GNSO PDP working well, and 
if not, what needs to be done? Comments are welcome during the ATRT2 
face-to-face meeting in Durban, and we are also seeking to identify people or 
groups that are interested in providing input to the Independent Expert.

2.     The multi-stakeholder model presumes we can get substantive involvement 
from all stakeholders, including those who do not have financial interests at 
stake. Is that being achieved effectively, and if not, what does ICANN need to 
change to be able to do it effectively?


3.     There has been a lot of discussion, and some ATRT1 recommendations, 
related to the Public Comment process.  Do you think the process to receive 
comments is working well, and if not, what needs to be done to fix or change 
it?  For the comments that are received, do you feel that those requested by 
PDP Working Groups, Staff and the Board are effectively taken into account in 
ultimate decisions?


4.     Do you believe that ICANN's organization of Advisory Committees and 
Support Organizations and their respective internal organizations are effective 
in achieving ICANN's multi-stakeholder goals, and if not, how should things be 
changed?


5.     Do you have any comments with regard to ICANN's implementation of the 
recommendations of the three earlier AoC Review Teams - Accountability & 
Transparency, WHOIS, and Security, Stability & Resiliency?


6.     Do you have concerns about ICANN's overall transparency and 
accountability, or related issues that are specific to your group?


For more information on ATRT 2 activities: 
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40176025


Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Glen

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>


Attachment: ATRT2 - Questions for Durban interactions.docx
Description: ATRT2 - Questions for Durban interactions.docx



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>