Hi all I'm writing to give you all an update on the progress of the Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT). So far there have been two conference calls and a face-to-face meeting, which was held on 5-6 May at Marina del Rey. Records of the conference calls and the meeting can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/activities-1-en.htm The key documents to look at are the preliminary report of the meeting which lays out the work process and decisions of the ATRT and the set of questions to the community. http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/prelim-report-atrt-f2f-meeting-5-6may10-en.pdf http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/community-questions-18may10-en.pdf One of the decisions of the ATRT is that 'the RT agrees that Members have discretion to report back to their SOs and ACs as they deem fit.' So it would be good to get a sense from the NCSG as to what sort of feedback would be useful and perhaps from our GNSO councillors what kind of feedback would be useful for the GNSO. The meeting at Marina del Rey had a number of dimensions: - to elect the ATRT chair and vice-chair - to meet with the ICANN staff and get their perspective on the review as well as raise a few questions (part of this engagement with staff was confidential). - to develop a work programme for the ATRT which involved inputs from team members on conceptual frameworks, review methodology and an approach to performance indicators as well as a number of process and timetable points. I worked with Olivier Muron to introduce a discussion on conceptual frameworks for accountability. Part of the purpose of this was to start to build a common language on accountability and you can see the working definition we adopted in the preliminary report. We understand accountability as both a retrospective and prospective activity. We also looked at a number of different frameworks for understanding or assessing accountability as an element of the governance of institutions. And we generated a short history of recent accountablity-related activities in ICANN. What was significant here was learning that ICANN had undertaken an assessment of accountability by the One World Trust in 2007 using their Global Accountability Framework. This led to some thought about whether this would be useful as a baseline to assess ICANN's progress on accountability since then and the team decided to explore the OWT model further. It was also agreed that we should look further at Elinor Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development Framework for Common Pool Resource Institutions. See attached paper on conceptual frameworks. I also worked on developing the questions for the community which were published last week. It will be really important for NCSG to respond to these questions with as many concrete examples as possible as the answers will help the RT identify areas that will need to be explored in more depth. The RT is working on an RFP for a consultant to undertake a management review of ICANN's decision-making processes to identify whether ICANN's processes and procedures are designed and executed in a manner that ensures accountability and transparency and reflects the interstes of global internet users. The RT decided to hold another face to face meeting at the ICANN meeting in Brussels and to use that as an occasion to feed back to the community on the process. This will take the form of an open meeting as well as meetings with each constituency. I tried to suggest a more formal process of public hearings but that was not successful, maybe I didn't argue the case for it clearly enough. The dynamic on the RT is open, cooperative and committed to getting the job done successfully in a short timetable. Brian Cute and Manal Ismail are doing a good job as Chair and Vice-Chair. The ICANN staff are co-operating in the process but are not in a position to exert undue influence on the RT. That's all for now Best Willie