Hi all - for context in relation to the email I just sent :) - I
volunteered today to collate suggested points for our NCSG comment to
this review.
I simply gathered up the following from either list discussion, input
from Robin offlist, a very helpful summary on the GNSO council list by
Maria Farrel, and our original NCSG comments (which noted positive
progress since ATRT1 and expressed concerns about threats to ICANN's
multi-stakeholder (MSM), bottom-up, consensus-building model of
community participation and decision-making (citing the GAC Beijing
communique and the TM clearinghouse as examples) and recommending the
review team focus on practical operation of the multi-stakeholder model).
Apologies if I am repeating what you know, but as a reminder:
Overall on the ATRT2 report: imho it really is quite an incredible
document - massive (main report 78 pages, total 233 pages) and
comprehensive (these two things do not always correlate!)  I think it is
clear that submissions were listened to and appear to have been well
reflected (others may correct us on that). I shared Maria's excellent
and rather sobering summary and highlights of conclusions rather than
repeat it here.
There are new recommendations related to ATRT 1 (such as developing
metrics for transparency and accountability, rules on transparency for
staff, Board, GAC and SO/AC, proposed protections for whistleblowers)
and arising from ATRT2 (eg increasing equitable participation, GAC
involvement in PDPs, quite lengthy consideration of time for and
accesibility of PDPs and working groups and need for imporvements, and
new recommendations on financial accountability and transparency esp
critiquing this in light ICANN's status as a not for profit
organisation). The section reviewing the WHOIS (72-73) and SSR (p74) are
also interesting, critiquing the processes and implemention.

Overall, suggestions for the comments on this report are:
* welcoming the report and thanking the review team for its work 
* a recommendation to mandate the multi-stakeholder bottom-up process
* a comment about IPC's closed membership list (and this being in
contradiction to transparency and accountability principles of the MSM)
* reference to the tm+50 process and related developments.

Do folks feel able to make any general statements supporting (or not
supporting) the recommendations? Any thing missing?

Cheers

Joy Liddicoat



_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg