<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:3.0cm 2.0cm 3.0cm 2.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=DA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>According to our schedule for Proposed Observations or Recommendations for Discussion, I should do research for recommendations not being implemented. I have found the following remark from Adam Peake at our NomCom meeting in Durban page 25 - 26 in the transcript:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>“ADAM PEAKE<i>: I’ll ask my own question if I may. I’m interested to know how you’re looking at accountability and review. I know there has been a lot of discussion about reconsideration and so on, but the part that interests me from the bylaws there is how you’re considering the periodic reviews that should take place of the ICANN structures themselves. They don’t seem to be audited. The input doesn’t seem to continue. I would think that would be something that your committee might look at given the similarity in terms that you have in your titles there. And the Nominating Committee is a good example of that. There was a Nominating Committee [review?LFU]some years ago and there has been very little implementation.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-GB>If you look at the GNSO review that happened where we saw a restructuring into contracted and non-contracted parties, the delegates that come from the GNSO to the Nominating Committee do not reflect the structure of the GNSO as it currently exists.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-GB>So we have quite uncomfortable mismatches going on with what exists with the reality of how the organization works and then how the Nominating Committee reflects that, for example. And so we don’t seem to have very much auditing and processing of what happens with this rather important part of accountability and review that is in the bylaws of ICANN. So I wonder if you would like to take a look at that. Thanks</span></i><span lang=EN-GB>.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Brian’s answer:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>“BRIAN CUTE: <i>Just a quick response to Adam. One of the things we have to deliver is a recommendation on the Affirmation of Commitments review process itself. We want to make sure that this review process and the three that precede it are improved going forward. In that light, we have heard some comments to the effect that we need to be wary of the organization and not reviewing itself to death. It’s comments we’ve heard. So we’re in listening mode. I think those comments tie in to the point you raise about it might be appropriate for this Review Team to look at the other review processes in that broader light</i>.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>In order to shed more light on the issue one could contact Adam Peake and ask which NomCom review that is not being implemented or audited.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>It could also be a general recommendation that all reviews need to have a follow up on implementation of recommendation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Lise<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>