While the ICANN community was ringing in a new year on 31 December, the community review team charged with evaluating ICANN’s accountability and transparency was filing their final report. I wanted to make sure ICANN’s stakeholders and participants were aware that the Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT) submitted their report to the Board and posted it for public comment through 14 February. I encourage everyone to review this important document and share his or her views with ICANN’s Board.
This review fulfills an important obligation under the Affirmation of Commitments signed by the United States and ICANN. The Affirmation commits ICANN to remaining a private not-for-profit organization; declares that ICANN is independent; and commits ICANN to reviews performed by the community — a further recognition that the multi-stakeholder model is robust enough to review itself.
The community review team assessed ICANN’s execution of commitments to “maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders.” After extensive work and community consultations, the ATRT provided the Board with 27 recommendations to improve ICANN. The recommendations are focused on four areas — the Board (including the Nominating Committee’s selection processes), the Governmental Advisory Committee, public input and policy development, and review mechanisms for Board decisions — but have broad implications for ICANN and its organizations and stakeholders.
While I think the ATRT provided a useful report that builds upon ICANN’s commitments and past improvements, it is up to the community to provide comments and the Board to act upon the final recommendations. I urge you to share your views.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Jim Fleming 01.29.11 at 11:20 am
ICANN was formed in 1998 ONLY to do limited Proof-of-Concept Market Trials. While some trials were conducted and some results published, the consensus view is there is no need to continue the efforts that are costing time and money and not producing additional insights.
ICANN should be dissolved and any assets can help to reduce the budget deficit of the State of California.
In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama made it clear the .USA needs to move forward and lead the world.
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0126/DA-11-131A1.txt
We received proposals from nine parties in response to this notice: Comsearch, Frequency
Finder Inc., Google Inc., KB Enterprises LLC and LS Telcom, Key Bridge Global LLC, Neustar Inc.,
Spectrum Bridge Inc., Telcordia Technologies, and WSdb LLC.
…
While the operation of multiple
database administrators may present some coordination challenges, we find it is in the public interest to
have multiple parties developing business models for this new mechanism. The value of this exercise
extends beyond databases for the TV bands, as the Commission is also considering employing similar
database approaches in other spectrum bands.
8. We employ conditions on our database administrator designations for several reasons. First,
the Commission modified some of the requirements for the databases and administrators in the Second
MO&O, some time after the database administrator proposals were submitted. Accordingly, we are
designating these nine entities as database administrators only on a conditional basis, subject to the
requirement, inter alia, that each administrator supplement its previous filings with sufficient detailed
information to demonstrate how it will comply with the rule changes adopted in the Second MO&O.
Moreover, while we conclude that each of the applicants has an acceptable degree of technical expertise
to administer a database, as well as a viable business plan for operating it for at least five years, we
recognize that this threshold is but the minimum for providing the required services. Employing a more
exacting set of qualification requirements, however, would greatly expand the timeframe for selection
and reduce opportunities for participation and the potential competition for the subject services. To
balance these interests, we therefore require each database administrator to coordinate closely with the
agency to ensure competency, consistency and compliance with the rules and the database trials.