At 16:56 20/06/2008, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Personally, I do not have final comments yet, but my first impression is that, even if the recommendations are reasonable, there was not much effort in exploring radical changes to ICANN's basic architecture; however, possibly that lies outside of the mandate of an external reviewer of a single structure on the ICANN map, while it's more of a discussion for the Board itself; so it might become a more prominent theme in the second phase of the process.
Vittorio, I think we should carefully study the document. Most of the work I did on its formating etc/ yesterday night was destryoyed. I hope I can do it again and start a wiki page to permit a better review. I will not be here on the 25 being tied in a French NGOs/UN meeting for the UNESCO sept meeting. However, my discussion today with Wolf, the positions expressed by Paul Twomey about the Public Trust/Common Good being seen by ICANN as only in relation to the Market, where non-English readers, poor people and absantees had to fight their own fight to show they are interested, makes me feel there is a cultural divide between us and the Australian Team (I think I fight their fight for a long :-)) So there is again an efficiency problem, the same as we discussed a long ago (Was it when you were at the Vienna meeting?). Before lobbying for a change at the BoD level which can drain on our meager ressources and enthusiasm, I suggest we carefully consider if what the Review accepts to leave us with, cannot be far better used that they think. This is why I wish to read the whole document in detail. jfc