RD320 - ETNO Reflection Document in response to the discussion draft: “Affirmation Reviews – Requirements and Implementation processes” presented by ICANN

ETNO largely supports the discussion draft "Affirmation Reviews” presented by ICANN.
ETNO is concerned that the proposed size of the Review Teams is far too small and these must be enlarged. Given the key role Review Teams play and bearing in mind the various major stakeholders of ICANN, a proper representation, diversity and balance must be found within each Review Team. ETNO proposes that additional members participate in the Review Teams and that GNSO is represented in all Review Teams by at least one member.
ICANN experience and expertise related to the review topic are key requirements and should be prioritized in the member selection criteria. Members selected from SOs/ACs must act in their own personal capacity; however certain linkage with the SO/AC they represent is expected.
On the understanding that the first review on Accountability and Transparency must be completed by 31 December 2010, a deadline which creates many concerns about timing and quality of the work, ETNO proposes that this first review takes place as a pilot process and that a second review takes place soon after the first one (the second cycle could start in September 2011).

• ETNO largely supports the discussion draft "Affirmation Reviews” presented by ICANN. However ETNO believes that there is ample opportunity for improvement in many areas.
  
  
• ETNO is concerned that the proposed size of the Review Teams is far too small and these must be enlarged. The establishment of periodical reviews is a critical issue for the evolution of ICANN.  Although the issues at stake go beyond the work of the Review Teams (the Board must consider the recommendations and take proper action), given the key role Review Teams play and bearing in mind the various major stakeholders of ICANN, a proper representation, diversity and balance must be found within each Review Team. ETNO proposes that additional members participate in the Review Teams and that GNSO is represented in all Review Teams by at least one member (more in the case of the Review Team on Accountability and Transparency and of the Review Team on Competition Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice).
  
  
• Broader ICANN experience and expertise in the discipline(s) related to the review topic are key requirements and should be prioritized in the member selection criteria. Members selected from SOs/ACs must act in their own personal capacity; however certain linkage with the SO/AC they represent is expected. Periodic reporting as well as feedback to/from the respective SO/AC on key issues is necessary.
  
  
• On the understanding that the first review on Accountability and Transparency must be completed by 31 December 2010, a deadline which creates many concerns about timing and quality of the work, ETNO proposes that this first review takes place as a pilot process and that a second review takes place soon after the first one (the second cycle could start in September 2011).