[CCWG-ACCT] Reference for legal subteam

Bruce Tonkin Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
Wed Apr 8 10:46:51 UTC 2015

Hello Kieran,

>>   I think ICANN has gone too far down the route of heavy, formal reviews. If there is a group that the Board is effectively obliged to listen to, then small improvements to accountability processes can be made over time with focussed, more frequent discussions.

Agreed.  WE  have at least 8 reviews I thin coming up in the next 12 months or so.  Each review kicks of $ millions of work for consultants – that doesn’t always produce results that justify the cost and time of all involved.

I am thinking that the next round of reviews should focus on assessing whether the changes made from the last review have been effective – and potentially refine those changes further so they are effective.   These reviews should be time boxed – e.g to take the period starting and end with an ICANN public meeting- rather than year long reviews that kick of 5 years of project work.

For example in the WHOIS area – the registrar agreement were changed to require email and postal address checks.   It would be worth seeing if these have made any dent in making it easier to track down criminals.

Bruce Tonkin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150408/34620e69/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list