Wolf-Ulrich/Olivier

Whilst there’s certainly some logic to Tim’s suggestion, I do not believe it would be acceptable for ICANN to delay this review for 3 years.

The GNSO review has a different remit and it  doesn’t comply with the strict requirements set out as part of the AoC. Any delay will only result in further attacks on ICANN, particularly if it can be argued that the delay was engineered by parties with a vested interest in the existing arrangements.

The point you make about the workload is also valid, it’s something all of the key people within ICANN are struggling with. However I don’t believe the AoC requirements can be delayed on that count.

Tony

From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de
Sent: 27 April 2010 08:12
To: olivier.muron@orange-ftgroup.com
Cc: ispcp@icann.org
Subject: [ispcp] AOC

Olivier,

With regards to the accountability and transparency review the AOC states under 9.1 (e):  "assessing the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations, and effective and timely policy development".

At the last council meeting it was suggested by Tim Ruiz that since the Policy Development Process is already being reviewed as a result of the GNSO Review, it would be more timely to wait until the next Accountability and Transparency Review takes place in three years so as to measure the results of the revised Policy Development Process once implemented.

This seems to be rational from a viewpoint of saving workload but I wonder whether thougts from a broader prospective shall be raised by the review team. If that is the case I would appreciate your input.

Regards
Wolf-Ulrich