[Chapter-delegates] [?? Probable Spam] [SEEKING VIEWS] ISOC contribution to ICANNdocument on Affirmation Reviews

[Louis Houle]

Bill,

I know it's late but I wanted to let you know that I share your views.

Related to transparency and decision-making process, I would suggest 
that more room could be made in the processes (and obviously more 
funding) for the RALOS. The rationale being that they represent the end 
user with a voice that carries their concerns. I would also suggest that 
ISOC and ISOC Chapters should be supported in participating to RALOs 
activities and meetings.

Louis Houle
ISOC Québec

Bill Graham a écrit :
> 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
>