Hi,
Indeed the GNSO review is coming and is an opportunity to do self-evaluation and improve ourselves when needed. this review will put pressure on other groups and highlights any gap since the community will be involved in the process of evaluation if I am not misunderstanding the quick explanation in yesterday webinar.
our compliance may be a feature not an error, we are living to the principles we are usually advocating as civil society. but yes till now, the community was not clearly asked for input regarding the GNSO review.
we can bring the GNSO review and the compliance as topic during the meeting with the board in London but I am wondering what the board members would say? probably SIC (structural improvement committee) members will be the only to respond to that . anyway I will add it to the list of candidate topics, London meeting coming soon and so the preparation from our side!!
Best Regards,
Rafik
Hi,
sure.
> Might this be a topic we could raise in NCSG-Board meeting in
> London?
Compliance with the rules is also something we can make an issue in the
GNSO review.
Of course, some from other SG (Stakeholder groups) and C
(Constituencies) might respond that the SG and C are bottom up and what
right does the Board SIC (Structural Improvements Comm) have to make
such rules in the first place.
The lesson we might need to learn is that our compliance might be the
error. In any case the GNSO review should look into this issue.
avri
...
On 07-May-14 06:43, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> You may recall that at our January 2012 “House” meeting in LA we told
> Fadi much the same, that transparency was limited and highly variable
> elsewhere, e.g. one cannot even find a proper list of the IPC’s
> membership on their website, etc. We pressed the point that there
> should be uniform transparency requirements across GNSO and indeed
> ICANN communities and he expressed interest in the idea and talked
> about engaging Transparency International or similar to do an
> evaluation. We never followed up with him and nothing happened to my
> knowledge.
>
> Might this be a topic we could raise in NCSG-Board meeting in
> London?
>
> Bill
>
>
> On May 7, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to self congratulate our SG for being the only GNSO SG, I
>> believe, to have an open archive list with meetings that have
>> public archived recordings and transcript. This make us, as I
>> understand it, the only SG in compliance with ICANN rules about SG
>> practices. I think it is good we do so, and I wish the rest of the
>> SG would come into compliance.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07-May-14 01:16, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> hi everyone,
>>>
>>> please find here the mp3 recording of yesterday confcall