Re: [ga] Coalition For ICANN Transparency

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ICANN should also develop a "Responsiveness Policy" where they undertake to
respond to mail in "x" days because that is also part of being open and
transparent: not just evading reasonable questions because it suits them to
ignore correspondence. And they should make themselves accountable to
third-party scrutiny if they fail to uphold their Responsiveness Policy.

Come to that, the concept of a much more independent third-party
ombudsman/woman would also be a good step towards openness and transparency.

The only accountability that really matters to ICANN is its accountability
to the DoC of the USA.

That is insufficient accountability.

Richard H

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Coalition For ICANN Transparency


> Danny Younger ha scritto:
> > I spotted an interesting website at
> > http://www.cfit.info/
>
> I'm not sure about who is behind the initiative, but I think it's due
> time that ICANN works out how to make its accountability and
> transparency much better. Actually, we released a statement in
> Luxembourg to this effect:
> http://www.icann.org/presentations/alac-statements-lux-14jul05.pdf
> and, of course, it was duly ignored. I think we'll get back on this
> matter in Vancouver.
> -- 
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...