Abstract: 

ATRT Final Recommendations #9 generally reflects the community feed backs and contains the improvements. Rec.9.2 is particularly important for accountability of decision-making process and reform of appeal mechanism. It is insightful to form a SCG to examine the options to restructure the current IRP and reconsideration process. But it is still unclear whether the review/restructure will cover the other "appeal" mechanisms in various gTLDs and ccTLDs processes, such as the objection procedures in the new gTLD program and apply for review procedure in IDN ccTLD program. It is especially unclear whether IRP and reconsideration process will be the "final" appeal channel available to review any other appeal decisions, either from internal bodies or outside service providers.

 

Additional note by Avri Doria; (As we have not seen what the Board intends to do about recommendation 9.2  it is good to be skeptical.  But if indeed they do honor the suggestion for a community wide discussion of ICANN accountability and appeals, then At-large needs a strategy for contributing to that.  For accountability to be real, it needs to extend to all of the ALS so that they can look at it from the diversity of global user  perspectives that only At-Large can bring to ICANN.

 

Questions:

 

1) What sort of appeals mechanisms does ICANN need?

2) Is the soft bottom-up oversight offered by the AOC adequate or does ICANN need some other form of oversight, especially in this time of NTIA transition?  

3) How can the AOC Accountability and Transparency process be improved.

4) Do you agree with Transparency by default for an organization like ICANN.  Should all issues that are not treated with full transparency be logged as such with a description of why Transparency was not appropriate treatment for the issue.  Should there be a time limit on items that are deemed secret? 

5) Does ICANN need a yearly Transparency audit? Why or why not?

 

Questions raised by ICANN:

 

 * What issues does the community identify as being core to strengthening ICANN's overall accountability in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government?

 * What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the community?

* Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's accountability and so, how?

 * What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is  meeting its accountability commitments?

 * Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives up to its commitments?