RE: [ga] independent review and information disclosure policies posted

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Could it be that, perhaps, ICANN have commissioned this review, perhaps
recognising a certain lack of transparency and lack of procedures in place
to assist with transparency, as a first step towards a remedy?

See my last email for ideas on how to be inclusive of the process.  Put your
thoughts and ideas in the Action Plan format.  You may be surprised at the
response it receives.  

For instance, the question wrt "maximum extent feasible" could be placed in
the Action Plan as a recommendation to define the phrase for clarity.  That
is not saying that there would be an easy definition but it would highlight
the point and ICANN would see the loop hole that you are complaining about.
Perhaps this would lead to a rewording of the ByLaws.

Best regards

Debbie 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Hasbrouck [mailto:edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 28 June 2007 23:57
> To: Debbie Garside
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [ga] independent review and information 
> disclosure policies posted
> 
> On 28 Jun 2007 at 23:19, "Debbie Garside" <Debbie Garside 
> <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
> > To expect ICANN to deliver solutions within 3 months of the report 
> > being published is completely unrealistic.
> 
> As I said in my comments, the report did not address the 
> fundamental problems with ICANN's lack of transparency and 
> accountability: the failure to actually operate in compliance 
> with the transparency and accountability Bylaws.  My request 
> for independent review, and for stay pending independent 
> review, was made more than 2 years ago.  Other requests for 
> independent review have been pending for many more years.
> 
> > What would be better is to, perhaps,
> > help ICANN in devising those solutions.
> 
> I have made specific suggestions for what needs to be done:
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/principles-comments/msg00011.html
> 
> I remain willing to work with ICANN to develop 
> mutually-agreed procedures for the pending independent review 
> requests, since an IRP had not yet been designated and 
> procedures had not yet been approved when my request and 
> other requests were made. I have repeatedly urged ICANN to 
> schedule a public meeting for this purpose.  ICANN has not 
> yet even considered my request for independent review and 
> stay, or any of the others (or has done so, if at all, only 
> in secret, in violation of the transparency Bylaw).
> 
> 
> ----------------
> Edward Hasbrouck
> <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> <http://hasbrouck.org>
> +1-415-824-0214
> 
> 
> 
>