Comments re. ICANN Accountability and Transparency

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please note the following thoughts in response to ICANN's request for
comments regarding the document titled 'ICANN Accountability and
Transparency -- Draft Frameworks and Principles' posted on 23 June 2007.
These comments are submitted in my personal capacity and do not
necessarily represent the views of my company or the GNSO constituency
to which I belong.

ICANN Consultation Principles

The first bullet of the first principle (page 18) says:

"To maximize the ease of participation in any consultation, ICANN will:

*         Provide information on upcoming issues as far in advance as
possible to give the community time to respond "

This principle is a good one but is probably too vague to be useful.  I
suggest that it be modified to include a minimum target.  For example,
it could be worded as follows: "Provide information on upcoming issues
as far in advance as possible to give the community time to respond; in
cases of issues to be publicly discussed in a meeting, best efforts will
be made to provide applicable information at least one week prior to the
meeting.

 

The second bullet of the third principle (page 19) says:

To maximize transparency of the consultation process, ICANN will:

*         Require that all comments be tagged with the sender's name and
any relevant affiliation (where the individual is speaking on behalf of
a group). Where the respondent is an ICANN Supporting Organisation,
Advisory Committee, or constituency group, some indication should be
given of the process that was used to develop the comment and the
parties who took part in that process (emphasis added)

Is there any reason why the word 'should' should not be replaced with
'must'?  This seems to be essential information underlying submission of
comments from supporting organizations, advisory committees or
constituencies.

ICANN Translation Principles

The description of the third layer of the translation framework (page
20) refers to 'a translation approval system'.  It would be helpful if a
brief explanation was added to explain what is envisioned in this
regard, possibly as a footnote.
 
Chuck Gomes