[NA-Discuss] Draft report on ICANN Accountability and Transparency

Cheryl Langdon-Orr langdonorr at gmail.com
Sun Nov 7 23:29:41 UTC 2010

Great to see discussion on this issue getting going on Regional lists
 thanks keep it up and as part of the ATRT I look forward to the outcomes...

Just want to remind you all that this initial ATRT was highly time
compressed by dates  set and NOT negotiable from when the AoC was signed,
 future ATRT's  would and should be able to do a whole lot more ( and many
of us wished we had had the time ans support to do so)  BUT  that said
what we *had to address* this time was specific to Section 9 from the AoC
(copy inserted below) and therefore had to address specific matters
regarding ICANN BOD, GAC and their relationship etc., :-

9. Recognizing that ICANN will evolve and adapt to fulfill its limited, but
important technical mission of coordinating the DNS, ICANN further commits
to take the following specific actions together with ongoing commitment
reviews **specified below:

9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global
Internet users: ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for
public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the
outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be
accountable to all stakeholders by:

(a) continually assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board)
governance which shall include an ongoing evaluation of Board performance,
the Board selection process, the extent to which Board composition meets
ICANN's present and future needs, and the consideration of an appeal
mechanism for Board decisions;

(b) assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with
the Board and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective
consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the
technical coordination of the DNS;

(c) continually assessing and improving the processes by which ICANN
receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and
the rationale thereof);

(d) continually assessing the extent to which ICANN's decisions are
embraced, supported and accepted by the public and the Internet community;


(e) assessing the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross
community deliberations, and effective and timely policy development. ICANN
will organize a review of its execution of the above commitments no less
frequently than every three years, with the first such review concluding no
later than December 31, 2010.

The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review
team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include
the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the
Chair of the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory
Committees and Supporting Organizations and independent experts. Composition
of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in
consultation with GAC members) and the Chair of the Board of ICANN.
Resulting recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and
posted for public comment.

The Board will take action within six months of receipt of the
recommendations. Each of the foregoing reviews shall consider the extent to
which the assessments and actions undertaken by ICANN have been successful
in ensuring that ICANN is acting transparently, is accountable for its
decision-making, and acts in the public interest. Integral to the foregoing
reviews will be assessments of the extent to which the Board and staff have
implemented the recommendations arising out of the other commitment reviews
enumerated below.

The 4 WT's created in the ATRT to address our work plans did
therefore focus more narrowly than many of us originaly suggested or
desired, but had to keep to a non negotiable end date, and of course
our this was effected by several delays in some perts of our work for a
variety of reason in the begining of the process;  Yet being able to have
the Berkman study done to address some of the matters the ATRT -WT's  did
not have the time or resources to do, has indeed been a boon complementary
to  our work indeed, they whilst maintaining their independence,
yet effectively became an Ex-Officio part of the ATRT's activities, and in
my view were a very productive and valuable part of our outcomes. I trust
that all of At-Large appreciates that and our ability to ensure it was

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

On 8 November 2010 02:53, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> On 7 Nov 2010, at 10:35, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> > - why the report deals extensively with improving the relationship of the
> > Board and the GAC but does not mention "At-Large" once (and its only
> > reference to ALAC is historical)
> I think this is because the ICANN community has not learned to take
> At-Large seriously yet.
> Now, that the petition drive is over in NARALO, and I can speak without
> fear of being accused of campaigning in NARALO, that is one of the reasons a
> large part of my interest statement concerned working toward At-Large by-law
> parity with the GAC.  Until such time as At-Large achieves that and
> demonstrates the public interest work they have done, it will be hard to get
> the recognition, that the role of At-Large/ALAC should have in the ICANN
> organizational architecture.
> At-Large/ALAC has achieved a good start with its use of the by-laws
> capability of introducing issue report requests in GNSO. And Alan's job as
> not only a liaison to the GNSO council, but often as a virtual council
> member, including as a chair of a  GNSO WG, has gone a long way to
> increasing ALAC visibility.  As he is a Nomcom appointee, though, it did
> less for showing that the RALOs and the ALS's were ready for prime time
> influence yet.  I also do not know to what extent ALAC/At-Large has been
> active in ccNSO and ASO issues.  Might also be useful to start putting out
> At-Large/ALAC principles on issues to match those put out by the GAC.
> As I say, I think that ALAC deserves to be at the same level as the GAC,
> but there is a chicken and egg issue - which comes first, you get the
> by-laws recognition or show your influence?  I think the by-laws parity
> should happen ASAP, but I am sure I am in a minority with that view.
> I do agree that it might be worth commenting on this with relation to the
> Berkman report, which I think provides a good start in many places.
> a.
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list