[Chapter-delegates] Comments requested on the ICANN Accountability & Transparency Review Team Recommendations

[Bill Graham]

The Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) has posted their draft recommendations regarding ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) for public comment, see link to announcement at:

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03nov10-en.htm

(other languages also available)

Comments are sought before the beginning of the ICANN meeting, so effectively by Friday, December 3.  I have finally had a chance to read through the report and propose to offer a small number of comments from ISOC.  I am wondering if others of you have read the recommendations and plan to submit comments?  If so, I would appreciate hearing them.

The report is 49 pages long, but the recommendations themselves are all summarized in the first 5 pages.  Anyone who has been following the ICANN processes can probably read only the Executive Summary as the basis for comments.  If there are segments of particular interest, it is worthwhile reading the presentation of the ATRT's considerations further on in the text.

My intended comments are along the following lines:

1/  to congratulate the ATRT for the high quality of its work.  They have done a thorough and thoughtful job, and should be congratulated for it.

2/  to agree with the recommendations in general, but with the following comments:

3/  paragraphs 4 and 11 are not clear, so the report would benefit if they were expanded or a couple of examples provided for each.

4/  Section C (Public input processes and the policy development process) offers some good suggestions for improvement, but misses one key point.  It would be useful to note that transparency can be reduced by overwhelming people with detail or with volume.  E.g., very long reports or excessively large numbers of opportunities to have input can both reduce the public's ability and/or willingness to engage.  The Board and staff should be encouraged to be mindful of this danger.  Recognizing there may be issues of trust in some communities, perhaps the various SO/ACs could create a review team to look at the desirability of launching processes.  Staff should certainly be encouraged to produce well structured, plain-language and concise briefing materials, including an executive summary, so as to attract all concerned to comment.

I would appreciate hearing your comments on the above points or others in the report before end of day Wednesday, December 1st.  I will be submitting the ISOC SGE comments on Thursday, just before the Cartagena meeting.

kind regards,

Bill

========================
Bill Graham
Global Strategic Engagement
The Internet Society
graham at isoc.org