<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 18px/normal Helvetica; ">Dear Bill:</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 18px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 22px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 18px/normal Helvetica; ">Thankyou for sharing with us your comments and concerns about the ICANN evaluations in the context of the Affirmation of Commitments. In the light of your analysis and your request, allow me to contribute a few comments:</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 18px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 22px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 18px/normal Helvetica; ">1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Evaluations</b>: I have become a little skeptical about the time that the ICANN community and staff have to put into 'evaluations'. I would rather see the Board itself taking a more active role in publicly evaluating the proposed decisions which the ICANN Staff and the SOs present to it. I also have doubts as to the value-added and the cost-benefit of regularly bringing in external consultants associated with evaluations, particularly when the community is invited to participate <i>pro bono</i> and without much other support. Few consultants have the necessary knowledge, global reach and objectivity to add to the community's inherent wisdom and the Board's responsibilities.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 18px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 22px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal Helvetica; ">2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>The Panels and their mandate</b>: That being said, if these evaluations are part of the quid pro quo for the US DOC accepting the Affirmation of Commitments, then so be it. However, the evaluation panels appear to be rather top heavy and give the impression that the Board and the GAC definitely wish to keep control over this process. It is not clear to me how many, who and how the other panelists would be selected. The ALAC network is already seeking candidates. The panels will have to be a reasonable size, essentially limited by the maximum number that can work together on a conference call, e.g. about 12. In any event, their work would be subject to public comment and to final decisions by the Board (I trust).</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 18px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal Helvetica; ">In this context, I notice that ICANN can be quite pernikerty about whether a task force or panel has a mandate or a charter to make _policy_ recommendations. The drafting of Terms of Reference is apparently quite sensitive in this area.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 18px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal Helvetica; ">3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Competition and consumer choice</b>: The evaluation should have been undertaken _before_ the current gTLD process. The most critical economic decisions that have to be taken, soon, are the creation of new TLDs. This evaluation should not be delayed until _after_ the new gTLD decisions have been taken! This work should be undertaken by permanent economic staff advising the ICANN Board directly. </div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 18px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal Helvetica; ">4.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Public Interest:</b> I agree that the Public Interest has to be defined. The discussion in the NetChoice submission is a good start. In this context, I recall Steve Crocker's observation that the DNS market is an entirely human construction, <i>ex nihilo. </i>(And by extension, that the community can do whatever we like with it, although he did not say that.) David Maher also addressed this issue in a recent meeting in Barcelona.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 18px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal Helvetica; ">I would be very interested in your proposals as to how to define the public interest in this context. I would also welcome other comments and contributions from the community.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 18px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 18px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal Helvetica; ">Regards, Christopher.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal Helvetica; "><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px;"><br></span></font></div><div><div>On 20 Jan 2010, at 18:57, Bill Graham wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Dear all,<br><br>I've carefully gone through the ICANN document "Affirmation Reviews: Requirements and Implementation Processes," released 26/12/09, and available here: <<a href="http://icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#affrev">http://icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#affrev</a>>. I believe it would be appropriate and helpful for ISOC to comment on it. It is really 2 documents in 1. The first part is a broad proposal for carrying out the reviews called for in the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the US government. The 2nd part is the draft terms of reference for the first review called for by the Affirmation of Commitments: that is, a review of ICANN's accountability, transparency and decision-making processes, that is to be done by year end.<br><br>Comments are due by the end of January, meaning I will have to complete and send the document on January 29. Because time is short, I thought I would outline what I recommend ISOC would say here, and seek your views on a couple of questions.<br><br>The paper raises several questions for me, mostly related to the terms of reference for the first review. A primary issue is that I don't think that the paper is clear about what the review is targeting. The proposed terms of reference does not suggest how they are going to define or to develop definitions of accountability and transparency, or of the "public interest." I had the impression during the Seoul meeting that work is needed within the organization to formulate a clear understanding of what is meant by the "public interest," and I believe that some clear definitional work is essential if the review process is to help ICANN continue its positive development. As it is treated in the consultation document, "public interest" could be seen as similar to "client satisfaction." From an ISOC perspective, that is much too narrow a conception, because it misses the concept of ICANN's stewardship role over a vital and shared global resource. While the stakeholders and participants in ICANN processes are the ones to be involved in the reviews, they must look always at what is best for the Internet and for the broad community of Internet users world wide. One other comment making a similar point has already been made <<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/affrev-draft-processes/">http://forum.icann.org/lists/affrev-draft-processes/</a>>, and that is the major message I recommend ISOC make in its comments.<br><br>In addition, because I trained and worked as an evaluation professional for several years, I would propose to offer some technical/methodological suggestions that I believe will be helpful, but because they are mechanical, I won't go into them here.<br><br>In particular, I would appreciate hearing from you what elements you think need to be included in definitions of accountability and transparency. It would also be helpful to have your comments on the proposed composition of the review teams. ICANN's paper is proposing that the teams be kept small and composed of "representatives" of various ACs and SOs. From your experience, do you think this is achievable? Is it practical to have representatives from large and diverse groups who can accurately represent the community's interests and views. Do you agree with the recommended approaches to carrying out the studies?<br><br>I would appreciate it if you share your remarks by end of your day, January 27 at the latest. Earlier responses would be much appreciated.<br><br>And of course, I'd appreciate seeing a copy of any detailed comments you may make directly to ICANN.<br><br>best regards<br><br>Bill<br><br>========================<br>Bill Graham<br>Global Strategic Engagement<br>The Internet Society<br><a href="mailto:graham@isoc.org">graham@isoc.org</a><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Chapter-delegates mailing list<br>Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org<br>http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates<br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>