AW: [ispcp] AOC

[KnobenW at telekom.de]

Tony
 
thanks for the input. I agree and will contribute to the discussion
accordingly.
 


Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


________________________________

	Von: Tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
[mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com] 
	Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. April 2010 10:21
	An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; olivier.muron at orange-ftgroup.com
	Cc: ispcp at icann.org
	Betreff: RE: [ispcp] AOC
	
	

	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 at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-ispcp at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de
	Sent: 27 April 2010 08:12
	To: olivier.muron at orange-ftgroup.com
	Cc: ispcp at icann.org
	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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20100427/b914acf0/attachment.html>