-------- Original Message --------
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