[Chapter-delegates] [SEEKING VIEWS] ISOC contribution to ICANN document on Affirmation Reviews

[Christian de Larrinaga]

Bill, 

The first thing ISOC can say to ICANN is to be realistic about deadlines when asking for comments from what is a global part time constituency of interests and helpers! 

I like your approach. However I do think that when talking about ICANN people get wrapped up with it as a single body or institution and so end up talking about "transparency" and "accountability". This monolithic vision of ICANN is worrying. 

ICANN should really be not much more than a global co-ordination and promoter of local and regional activities involving those unique resources and identifiers that the community agreed to work together to manage. 

If ISOC can maintain its role as a conscience of a user orientated Internet and keep ICANN lean and to serve that purpose (and no other) that would be the most important contribution. 

best wishes,


Christian


On 20 Jan 2010, at 17:57, Bill Graham wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> I've carefully gone through the ICANN document "Affirmation Reviews: Requirements and Implementation Processes," released 26/12/09, and available here: <http://icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#affrev>.  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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 <http://forum.icann.org/lists/affrev-draft-processes/>, and that is the major message I recommend ISOC make in its comments.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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.
> 
> And of course, I'd appreciate seeing a copy of any detailed comments you may make directly to ICANN.
> 
> best regards
> 
> Bill
> 
> ========================
> Bill Graham
> Global Strategic Engagement
> The Internet Society
> graham at isoc.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates