Subject: Question 3
From: avri@acm.org
Date: 2010-07-01 06:31:02 GMT
Received: from 61.113.174.133
Revision: 6
3. Do you think ICANN's processes and decision making is transparent? Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN did not act in a transparent manner. If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe ICANN's actions were not taken in a transparent manner. Are ICANN's transparency mechanisms robust and how could they be improved?
From Avri:
For the most part, the decision making that goes on in the SOs seems transparent - certainly more so than most other organizations. However, due to the black hole that exits between SO recommendations, secret staff reports and recommendations, and secret Board deliberations, most of the transparency is lost. Staff reports should be publicly vetted and Board deliberations should be audiocast and recorded - in the same way laudable way that the A&T RT is doing.
contributed by avri@acm.org on 2010-06-14 17:46:36 GMT
We believe the Board generally has a genuine commitment to transparency in decision making, and that within the SOs transparency is usually not an issue. For the NCSG, however, there has been a lack of transparency in some of the Board's dealings with it during the formative process. Specifically, we refer to the process by which the NCSG interim charter was determined. In that context, we believe there are accountability and transparency issues with the manner in which the ICANN staff handled the process, as intermediary between our group and the Board's Structural Improvements Committee (SIC).
The NCSG-in-formation had drafted a bottom-up charter that had gained considerable support amongst not just its members but also non-member individuals and organizations (especially civil society participants), shown by the numerous comments filed in support of that charter during the public comment period. In the ICANN staff analysis of the public comments, however, such support was characterized as appearing to be a "letter writing campaign" on the part of Robin Gross (the NCUC Chair). All Ms. Gross and several members had done was to write to their civil society colleagues seeking support for the charter.
contributed by mwong@piercelaw.edu on 2010-06-22 15:29:28 GMT
From Wendy:
Two transparency problems: 1) a lack of connection between SO/AC positions and representation/real participation of the communities they're supposed to represent. and 2) transparency of the implementation of community decisions or the reasoning for rejecting it.
contributed by wendy@seltzer.com on 2010-06-22 16:53:56 GMT
