Hi all, Did I say I was going to take the lead..?

Maria


On 3 December 2013 08:07, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> NCUC and I believe NPOC met with ATRT and we certainly provided feedback,
> but no I don’t think anyone’s had the bandwidth to write something up
> unfortunately.  A couple people said they’d take a lead, but…
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 8:44 PM, joy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>  Hi - just following up to see if any comments were collated at ICANN 48
> for input to the ATRT2 review at all?
> Cheers
> Joy
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------  Subject: ATRT2 Review comments  Date: Thu,
> 21 Nov 2013 12:08:44 +1300  From: joy <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>  Reply-To:
> [log in to unmask]  Organisation: APC  To: [log in to unmask]
>
>  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 [log in to unmask]://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> [log in to unmask] (w), [log in to unmask] (h),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
>
>