Hi Avri, I thought that we can make it through google doc form (the form is even ready) but it won't possible for NCSG members to see the others contributions Rafik 2010/6/14 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> > hi, > > i thought of that. > > but as i had said previously when Bill asked , not everyone has access to > the wiki. and i do not plan to give everyone access to this particular wiki > as it is meant to be an informational wiki for use by the various committees > etc. plus adding everyone to it would be a lot of work and people already > have access to the ning. > > that is why i suggested that if you wanted everyone to comment on line you > use ning where everyone does have access. and then i heard that you had > some better solution in mind so i got out of the way. > > once i notice you put it on the wiki i said very few had access to, i > figured you had decided on a different approach. > > a. > > > On 14 Jun 2010, at 08:38, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > Thanks Avri, but the idea was that people comment each question in the > wiki and then making it easy for tacking responses and reading other > contributions. I thought that you wanted to encourage people to use wiki (: > > > > so every NCSG member who want to answer the question can login to the > link sent by Bill, he/she will find the 11 questions which redirect to > specific page. then he/she can comment there and see other answers. > > > > > > Rafik > > > > 2010/6/14 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> > > hi, > > > > As promised during the Open policy review phone call. My initial answers > to the questions. > > > > On 12 Jun 2010, at 05:10, William Drake wrote: > > > > > Hello again, > > > > > > After playing with different options, Rafik and I decided to put the > ATRT questions on the Social Text site. He's posted them at > https://st.icann.org/ncsg-ec/index.cgi?atrt_questionaire. Any and all > member responses to whichever questions you feel like addressing would be > very helpful. > > > > > > > 1. The ICANN Policy 'Support' Staff has operated in a very non > accountable way in all of its dealing with the Board on "behalf' of the rest > of the volunteer community. Instead of serving as a reliable broker, it has > a well established practice of send secret reports to the Board on policy > and on SO and AC affairs. On a few occasions when those reports have become > known, they proved to contain falsehoods. It is impossible to know whether > the falsehoods are due to errors or strategy, but they were nevertheless > false. And whether the false statements were accidental or intentional, the > community never has a chance to review what is written or to respond. > > > > The community has frequently asked for these secret reports to made > public - especially those that pertain to the activities and decision making > of the SOs and ACs, with the understanding that there are occasionally > issues that need to be private, but the Policy 'Support' Staff has mostly > not responded to the requests let alone opened itself up to scrutiny and > accountability. It is impossible to know how many board decisions were > based on faulty information and all private memos from the last year's must > to be made public and open to public scrutiny if ICANN is ever to be > considered an accountable and transparent institution. > > > > 2. The Ombudsman is not a viable option. Perhaps in theory it is, but > an Ombudsman is supposed to be someone who is outside the organization and > who is guaranteed neutral. We have an Ombudsman who has been involved in > the organization longer than many of the volunteers and is an integral part > of the staff and pals around with them and the Board. This is not, in any > way, a viable accountability mechanism. In order to become a viable > accountability mechanism, it would be necessary to replace an Ombudsman > every 2 or 3 years, and would be necessary for the person picked to remain > separate from the Staff and the volunteers. > > > > 3. For the most part, the decision making that goes on in the SOs seems > transparent - certainly more so than most other organizations. However, due > to the black hole that exits between SO recommendations, secret staff > reports and recommendations, and secret Board deliberations, most of the > transparency is lost. Staff reports should be publicly vetted and Board > deliberations should be audiocast and recorded - in the same way laudable > way that the A&T RT is doing. > > > > 4. ICANN's primary focus is still primarily focused on supporting those > who can make money on GTLDs and on assuaging the anger of a few governments > and not on the global Public Interest. For example, there is still a > great imbalance 3:1 in the GNSO between those who represent business and > those who represent the Non commercial interests. > > > > In terms of an event, I believe that the preference that the ICANN staff > clearly gave to getting out IDN ccTLDs over IDN gTLDs, including reports > (again always difficult to report without revealing sources from with the > ICANN blanket of secrecy) that there was a guarantee that the IDN ccTLDs > would be in the root 6 months before any new gTLD were allowed in the root. > The clear way in which the staff hustled to overcome the IDN ccTLD issue > while languishing through the creation of the so-called Overriding Issues to > slow down the new gTLD process was a way to meet international pressure from > governments at the cost of competition and freedom in the creation of IDN > gTLD by the same populations who are not receiving the IDN ccTLDs. > > > > I hope that the Review Team has the ability to dig into any and all email > archives and to question staff members (past and present) under guarantees > of personnel immunity on events that occurred over the past years in > managing to push the fasttrack , which started long after the new gTLD > policy, at least 6 months ahead of new gTLDs > > > > Because they are allowed to act secretly in these as well as other > respects, it is impossible to know exactly what they are doing. In addition > to eliminating the ability of the Staff to work in secret, there should be > whistle blower programs and protections to encourage those staff members who > see problems to report them publicly without fear or retribution. > > > > 5. I believe it is really remiss that the Board is responsible for > evaluating its own performance as opposed to having a committee that > includes members of the SO and ACs do the evaluation. > > > > An appeals mechanism is most definitely necessary, and various > recommendations for such an appeals mechanisms were made the during the > review before the MOU was replaced by the AOC. While the AOC Review > mechanisms are a start they are not sufficient. > > > > 6. The GAC is only one of two ACs in a position to review the performance > of the public interest. The ALAC should have equal consideration in that > effort. I believe the by-laws requirement that the GAC give non-binding > advice and that there be a policy for responding and deliberating that > advice is a good rule that should be extended to the ALAC. I also believe > that this needs to be done in an open and transparent way. I believe that > some of the tendency these day to regard GAC principles as addenda to the > by-laws is misplaced and a serious error. The role of the GAC and ALAC is > not oversight, but advice of the full scope of ICANN issues. > > > > 7. The reviews of GAC and ALAC issues need to be deliberate and > specific, with the discussions open to the community and the results clearly > and adequately published for reference. The most important improvement that > need to be made is to give ALAC the same non binding consideration that the > GAC has in terms of advice that is listened to, understood, deliberated, and > responded to. > > > > 8. While comment response is improving, it is not good enough yet. All > comments should be reviewed and responded to in writing. Not all comments > require or merit a change in the process, policy or document under review, > but all need to be reviewed and understood with the responses clearly > documented. In some cases this has started happening and that is good. In > other cases this has not happened either because the staff was said to not > have the resources or because the volunteers did not feel the comments > merited a response. This is an area where further improvement is required. > > > > 9. The current rush to create a central a DNS Cert authority with > invitation only meetings and staff declarations that this is an operational > issue and not a policy issue is the latest event of that nature. By and > large most ICANN 'operational' decisions are never fully explained and never > opened to review and response by the ICANN volunteer community unless the > community raises a fuss. This is an area where great improvement is > required. > > > > 10. I believe the recent ICANN staff decision to reserve Geographical > names in way contrary to the policy recommendation of the GNSO that had been > approved by the Board is one such instance where the decision was neither > embraced, supported or accepted. > > > > 11. I think the policy development process is improving in this regard > with more diverse working groups and earlier discussion of issues. The > secrecy at the top, however, where the policy recommendations can be > obviated though various means (including secret misinformation) remains a > serious problem, and a way in which the improvements can be negated. > > > >