[PC-NCSG] ATRT2 draft comments

[joy]

sorry gusy - wrong list - will send to the main one
Joy
On 21/11/2013 12:02 p.m., joy wrote:
> Hi all - 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 will share 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
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131121/89f3548c/attachment.html>