[At-review] RESENDING: Draft agenda for the RT 26 April call

[Willie Currie]

Dear Janis

Can I suggest we add an additional item to the agenda: Conceptual 
Framework for the Review? A number of inputs from team members have 
touched on the issue on the list and I think it could be explored further.

In the past week I have been looking at the conceptual framework of the 
Global Accountability Project (GAP) which is a project of the One World 
Trust (http://www.oneworldtrust.org/) and I think it may be useful for 
us to adapt it to our review for the following reasons:

- the GAP framework is for global institutions and can be adapted for 
the internal use of any institution in assessing its own accountability.
- it operates off a simple yet clear four-part matrix of analysis: 
Transparency,  Participation, Evaluation and Complaint & response 
mechanisms.
- it makes a useful distinction between internal and external 
stakeholders, which is something the AoC references when it says 'there 
is a group of participants that engage in ICANN's processes to a greater 
extent than Internet users generally'.
- it makes a distinction between traditional forms of accountability 
(the retrospective  activity of passing judgments on activities already 
undertaken) and newer approaches to accountability (a dynamic and 
ongoing process which involves all stakeholders at all stages of an 
organisation's decision-making from formulation to evaluation).
- it has been tested over a number of years.

There is clearly no time to dicsuss the GAP framework in any detail 
today - so I'd like to suggest that we put the issue of a conceptual 
framework on the agenda for the ftf meeting and that everyone reads the 
GAP framework in preparation for the meeting. The framework is available 
on the GAP's website in the form of a short guide and a longer text:  
http://www.oneworldtrust.org/index.php?searchword=pathways+to+accountability&ordering=&searchphrase=all&option=com_search 


Best
Willie

Willie Currie
Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

 

Janis Karklins wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
>  
>
> After reading all comments I would like to suggest the following 
> agenda for the Monday's conference call:
>
>  
>
> 1.      Preparations for the MdR meeting
>
>  
>
> a.      Questions to the staff (endorsement of BB list)
>
>  
>
> b.      Draft agenda of the meeting
>
>  
>
> i.      Election of the Chair/ //(pls think about candidates)/
>
>  
>
> ii.     Interaction with staff
>
>  
>
> iii.    Adoption of the review methodology and timetable
>
>  
>
> iv.     Discussion of performance indicators/ questions for ICANN 
> Community (see FC, LS, WA input)
>
>  
>
> c.      Meeting transparency (open or closed) (See BC e-mail)
>
>  
>
> 2.      Review methodology and timetable/ RT meeting schedule
>
>  
>
> 3.      Appointment of penholders/volunteers on all above issues for 
> the MdR meeting
>
>  
>
> 4.      AoB
>
>  
>
> This is just  a proposal. Pls feel free to correct, if think it is off 
> the target. But is not, pls think about volunteersJ.
>
>  
>
> Best regards
>
>  
>
> JK
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-review mailing list
> At-review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100426/b7c67f51/attachment.html