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 > *********************************************************** > >