<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-western"> 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.<br>
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 <span style="font-size: 11pt;
line-height: 115%;" lang="EN-US">multi-stakeholder (MSM),
bottom-up, consensus-building model of community participation
and decision-making (citing </span>the GAC Beijing communique
and the TM clearinghouse as examples) and recommending the review
team focus on practical operation of the multi-stakeholder model).<br>
Apologies if I am repeating what you know, but as a reminder:<br>
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. <br>
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. <br>
<br>
Overall, suggestions for the comments on this report are:<br>
* welcoming the report and thanking the review team for its work
<br>
* a recommendation to mandate the multi-stakeholder bottom-up
process<br>
* a comment about IPC's closed membership list (and this being in
contradiction to transparency and accountability principles of the
MSM)<br>
* reference to the tm+50 process and related developments.<br>
<br>
Do folks feel able to make any general statements supporting (or
not supporting) the recommendations? Any thing missing?<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
Joy Liddicoat<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<div class="moz-text-plain" wrap="true" graphical-quote="true"
style="font-family: -moz-fixed; font-size: 14px;" lang="x-western">
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:PC-NCSG@ipjustice.org">PC-NCSG@ipjustice.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg">http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg</a>
</pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>