- comments-atrt3-draft-report-16dec19@icann.org

[Comments-atrt3-draft-report-16dec19] Business Constituency (BC) comment on 3rd Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Draft Report
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 31, 2020

Jan. 31, 2020

Attached is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC) regarding the third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Draft Report. This comment was drafted by Steve DelBianco, Barbara Wanner, Tola Sogbesan, and Denise Michel. It was approved in accord with our Charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

1 0

[Comments-atrt3-draft-report-16dec19] RrSG response to ATRT3 Draft Report
by Zoe Bonython Jan. 31, 2020

Jan. 31, 2020

Hello, On behalf of the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG), I would like to submit the attached response to the ATRT3 Draft Report. Kind regards, Zoe Bonython RrSG Secretariat

1 0

[Comments-atrt3-draft-report-16dec19] SSAC2020-05: SSAC Public Comment on Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Draft Report
by Andrew McConachie Jan. 31, 2020

Jan. 31, 2020

On behalf of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) please find SSAC2020-05: SSAC Public Comment on Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Draft Report attached. Sincerely, Andrew McConachie ICANN Policy Support for the SSAC

1 0

[Comments-atrt3-draft-report-16dec19] GNSO IPC Comments re Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Draft Report
by Brian Scarpelli Jan. 31, 2020

Jan. 31, 2020

On behalf of the GNSO Intellectual Property Constituency, please find attached comments of the IPC on the Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Draft Report. Brian Scarpelli Senior Global Policy Counsel +1 517-507-1446<mailto:+1%20517-507-1446> | bscarpelli(a)actonline.org<mailto:bscarpelli@actonline.org> ACT | The App Association 1401 K St NW (Ste 501) Washington, DC 20005

1 0

[Comments-atrt3-draft-report-16dec19] Regarding sections 10.5
by Heather Flanagan Jan. 29, 2020

Jan. 29, 2020

Hello review team members, The reviews I’ve read through or observed to date appear to come down to two basic characteristics and requirements: 1 - They need to hold ICANN accountable to the world that ICANN is doing what it says it’s going to do in its policies and procedures. 2 - They need to be handled in a timely enough fashion that ICANN has time to respond to the review and change their processes and procedures as necessary. The current review team model is indeed dysfunctional, with too many reviews running at the same time, and too many recommendations for ICANN to be able to respond to effectively, and it does not appear that the current review process is meeting either of those basic requirements. Rather than require a review team to try and do all its work in a 5 day workshop, which seems unreasonable and almost designed to result in a very shallow review, I personally would recommend that ICANN treat this as a more typical audit process and hire a firm that does audits for a living to evaluate if ICANN is following its own processes and procedures, and to make recommendations where those processes/procedures are insufficient or otherwise not being met. The final report from the audit company can be made available for public comment, thus keeping that public accountability open. It may be that an audit isn’t a correct model in all cases, but it certainly will fill some (e.g., SSR and WHOIS/RDS) but the idea has the potential to cut down on the number of review teams running concurrently, and given the contractual arrangement with an audit firm, you can set a more reasonable time limit (e.g., 6 months per review). I hope this suggestion is useful, and I wish you the best with wrapping up the ATRT3 process. Heather Flanagan

1 0

[Comments-atrt3-draft-report-16dec19] Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team Draft Report - The user's opinion
by Дарья Хвостовец Jan. 27, 2020

Jan. 27, 2020

Key Findings This is really laudable of ICANN to enhance the existing mechanism of functioning and to develop transparency in spite of the inconsistency between ICANN reported details and those was stated under the ATRT3. Survey results As an internet user and legal professional I may express my consent with the common opinion reflected in the survey results. Key Recommendation and Suggestions Due to lots of information and its technical focus there are some problems with the site’s navigation. Sometimes this is impossible to find the necessary information. Also sometimes in respect of public docs, recommendations and reports there is the lack of information concerning its effectiveness (this is absolutely true for new gTLDs contest procedures). Closure In general, the ATRT3 represents the holistic analysis of ICANN's work from the perspective of transparency. The review is comprehensible and unbiased. It stipulates the fields for improvement and emphasises the progress in the accountability and transparency reached by ICANN. Thank you for your work at this direction.

1 0

[Comments-atrt3-draft-report-16dec19] Section 10 on Periodic and Organizational Reviews
by Russ Housley Dec. 31, 2019

Dec. 31, 2019

Issue 8 (Section 10) deals with Periodic and Organizational Reviews. As the current chair of the SSR2 Review Team, I would like to provide some comments on that section. I prefer Option 1, but I believe that the implementation of Option 1 could adopt some concepts from Option 2 in order to reduce the time commitment for an individual to take part in a Specific Review. In my view, a Specific Review could be conducted in less than a year using a schedule roughly like this: Staff Preparation: - Prepares a report on the implementation of the recommendations from the previous review (See Note1 below) - Hire a technical writer for the yet-to-be-formed review team Meeting 1 (in conjunction with an ICANN meeting): - Select leasership - Establish ToR - Assignments for assessing the implementation of previous recommendations; deliver by email to whole team and technical writer for discussion on weekly teleconferences - Prepare questions for ICANN staff Meeting 2 (6-8 weeks after Meering 1): - Review the draft report on recommendation implementation - Review progress on the questions for ICANN staff, providing clarifications as needed Meeting 3 (in conjunction with an ICANN meeting): - Review draft report on the implementation of previous recommendations - Receive answers to the questions for ICANN staff (might include briefings) - Assignments for writing findings and recommendations; deliver by email to whole team and technical writer for discussion on weekly teleconferences Meeting 4 (6-8 weeks after Meering 3): - Review draft report - Send it out for public comment Meeting 5 (in conjunction with an ICANN meeting): - Resolve public comments - Send final report to the ICANN Board after discussion on a teleconferences Note1: The amount of work needed to produce this report is greatly reduced if a dashboard for each recommendation is produced. This suggestion has been made is different forms in different venues of the last few years. SSR2 will make this suggestion yet again in out upcoming draft report.

1 0