ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ispcp]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ispcp] AOC

  • To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, <olivier.muron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [ispcp] AOC
  • From: "Tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:20:44 +0100
  • Cc: <ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s1024; t=1272356446; bh=yBsNFfEKhMr2QLmEXOuq+VmpBU1GsGp6s+kivx4HHLY=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; b=YHGbskEpvrA1m9g23ZUv8XlrAiSLQ+P+epbH1ojXVh4p1T8zxXY1/dZHiQTqkUujNzWFG43RnkuHfTr3xj3YPq9CgGgD4Eu2b9wNUy4RyS85XaHkUjbzXw3eC9ZK3ifrcgS/MAXhiGWNZ0bY7tZcCxR3XCLPthZ0roxe3jIJtBw=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=DKIM-Signature:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; b=sG3KZ4Z+pJ/GvYHWnu6p3pVQyjoOcmGRURbcrK2YjU2cvYsht3v9YZHIxTcPh82WgJEUiESHjlVi2fx2syoAdONj4vE1IuI8B1StQZJ2YDhGAdQL3hY/ZOryZbcrL7g6w0QsDn4JINIEqLTYBvxQ5St+l9ey51cefGT2Ni1DbrE= ;
  • In-reply-to: <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE01A60B50@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de>
  • List-id: ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE01A60B50@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de>
  • Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acrl2PdWc0Xc8RWIRGibZ6Ojpm9iYgAB9XWA
Wolf-Ulrich/Olivier

 

Whilst there's certainly some logic to Tim's suggestion, I do not believe it
would be acceptable for ICANN to delay this review for 3 years. 

 

The GNSO review has a different remit and it  doesn't comply with the strict
requirements set out as part of the AoC. Any delay will only result in
further attacks on ICANN, particularly if it can be argued that the delay
was engineered by parties with a vested interest in the existing
arrangements.

 

The point you make about the workload is also valid, it's something all of
the key people within ICANN are struggling with. However I don't believe the
AoC requirements can be delayed on that count.

 

Tony

 

From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 27 April 2010 08:12
To: olivier.muron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ispcp] AOC

 

Olivier, 

With regards to the accountability and transparency review the AOC states
under 9.1 (e):  "assessing the policy development process to facilitate
enhanced cross community deliberations, and effective and timely policy
development".

At the last council meeting it was suggested by Tim Ruiz that since the
Policy Development Process is already being reviewed as a result of the GNSO
Review, it would be more timely to wait until the next Accountability and
Transparency Review takes place in three years so as to measure the results
of the revised Policy Development Process once implemented.

This seems to be rational from a viewpoint of saving workload but I wonder
whether thougts from a broader prospective shall be raised by the review
team. If that is the case I would appreciate your input.

 

Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>