<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#333333">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Even after a review team
is constituted, it has to work within the guidelines issues by the
ICANN Board, which could be whatever, and could perhaps even
change/ adapt.... The first task of the review team is given as </font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">"Reviewing and
adopting the review processes in accordance with guidelines
issued by the Board following the ongoing public consultation
phase; </font>"<br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Doesnt look like oversight
to me. Unclear who is overseeing whom, the review teams overseeing
ICANN or ICANN overseeing the review teams. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
On Monday 09 July 2012 04:36 PM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4FFABB1B.4000201@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
On Sunday 08 July 2012 10:35 PM, John Curran wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:3F996C74-A7CC-48F6-8365-293E9A634B54@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>On Jul 8, 2012, at 10:48 AM, parminder wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Helvetica,
Arial, sans-serif; ">(snip)</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>Parminder - </div>
<div> </div>
<div> Could you elaborate on why you view the present AoC-based
review</div>
<div> mechanisms as not being "independent and outside" of
ICANN? Also,</div>
<div> are there particular improvements you would suggest to
improve the</div>
<div> independence of same?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks!</div>
<div>/John</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
In his blog, Milton described accountability under AoC rather
interestingly :) (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/05/04/accountability-under-the-affirmation-of-commitments/">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/05/04/accountability-under-the-affirmation-of-commitments/</a>
)<br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>ASO to NRO: we need to be reviewed!
<p>NRO to ASO: don’t worry, I’ll do it</p>
<p>NRO to ITEMS: here’s some money, do a review</p>
<p>ITEMS to ASO: We talked to both heads, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ASO-Review-Report-2012.pdf"
onclick="javascript:_gaq.push(['_trackEvent','download','http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ASO-Review-Report-2012.pdf']);">here’s
your report</a>!</p>
<p>ASO and NRO: We are now reviewing your review report! <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nro.net/news/joint-nro-aso-ac-response-to-aso-review-report"
onclick="javascript:_gaq.push(['_trackEvent','outbound-article','http://www.nro.net']);">Here
are our comments</a></p>
<p>ITEMS, NRO and ASO: Splendid! Let’s have tea!</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
You can see that review boards are filled by nominees of ICANN
supporting structures, so I dont know why you ask me what I mean
by 'independent and outside' review. <br>
<br>
Well, even applying ICANN's standards elsewhere, in its bylaws
dealing with independent review through ICDR's independent
arbitration rules, would be a good start. To quote <br>
<blockquote>Independent from <abbr title="Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> (i.e., not an <abbr
title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr>
employee; not a regular participant in <abbr title="Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr>'s
processes; not a member of any <abbr title="Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr>
Sponsoring Organization or Advisory Committee; not affiliated
with any registrar or registry holding a contract with <abbr
title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr>).
(
http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/mechanisms-experts-eoi-11mar12-en.htm
)<br>
</blockquote>
This I would say is the least. And AoC review boards clearly do
not conform even to this standard of 'independence' from the
ICANN. So who is reviewing whom? <br>
<br>
(Two members of one of the review boards recently resigned form
the board to join ICANN! I see that the present CEO of Go daddy
registrar was a member of accountability review board! Dont know
if he was concurrently both.)<br>
<br>
I also cannot understand how the chair of the board of ICANN, the
main party to be reviewed and made accountable, can have a veto on
choosing members of the review board. <br>
<br>
Accordingly, we can take it that these 4 review boards are at the
most internal review boards, for focussing some amount of
organisational thinking on needed process changes etc. By no
stretch of imagination can they be considered and proposed as
oversight, and accountability extracting, bodies, as some people
have liberally been doing. We see AoC review boards frequently
mentioned in discussions over CIR oversight. In the above light,
this can be considered as wrong, and kind of misleading.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:3F996C74-A7CC-48F6-8365-293E9A634B54@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Disclaimer: My views alone. No fiscal unions were
established in the</div>
<div>preparation this email.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>