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

[Bill Graham]

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