Date & Time

Monday, 3 June 2013 - 18:00-19:00 UTC

Time converter:http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WS2+-+Call+01&iso=20130603T18&ah=1

Streaming: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/ or http://stream.icann.org:8000/atrt

Proposed Agenda  

  1. Administrivia (SoI updates, etc)
  2. How should we proceed on the SSR review of work to date?
  3. How should we evaluate cross-cutting issues in the context of SSR?
  4. What additional SSR topics should we examine?
  5. timeline/future calls/meetings (see https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/Timeline)
  6. AOB

Recording 

Chat Transcript

Chat transcript - 3 June

Work Streams Document

WS 3 June.docx

  • No labels

1 Comment

  1. David Conrad

    Random thoughts before the call (stealing from Fiona's notes from the WS4 call):

    Proposed WS2 theme: Consider the extent to which ICANN's security/stability/resiliency (SSR) assessments and actions have been successful in ensuring that ICANN is acting transparently, is accountable for its decision-making, and acts in the public interest

    Cross cuts:

    • Metrics, success criteria.  How processes can be verified in an accountable and transparent way.
    • Review methods for continual assessment. What are those methods? How/when are they applied? 
    • Accountability + Transparency = Legitimacy towards Governments and the larger Internet.  How is ICANN SSR outreach doing?  Where it going?
    • Efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy: Are SSR efforts efficient? Are they effective? Are they considered legitimate by "the community"
    • Transparency as a default condition: are decisions related to SSR transparently made? 
    • How can ICANN's SSR efforts be effective and efficient while improving full multi-stakeholder participation, accountability and transparency. 

    Questions for staff and Board:

    1. What processes have been established for implementing and overseeing recommendations of the review teams? 
    2. What did you learn?
    3. What worked well?  What did not work well?  What adjustments had to be made?
    4. What improvements were made in the subsequent review processes?
    5. How did staff and Board ensure that public interest was addressed after the implementation was completed?