speaking of accountability...

[Baudouin SCHOMBE]

In my opinion, ICANN must respect transparency and  decisions which are
made. One should not want a thing and his opposite. If ICANN is claimed to
comply with the democratic rules, it must also be example of the
applications of these rules.

thanks Milton to call our attention in this process.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
niveau.


2010/3/29 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>

>
>
> In a bad development, ICANN’s lawyers are attempting to brush aside its
> only real external accountability mechanism, the Independent Review Process
> (IRP). As you know, ICANN lost its IRP challenge on the .xxx top level
> domain.
>
>
>
> Instead of accepting this decision and conforming to it, ICANN is asking
> for public comment on whether it should accept the decision (simple answer:
> YES); it is also suggesting that the applicant would have to go through an
> entirely new “review process” to get the domain that was unfairly denied it
> five years ago. The proposed process for the “review” looks like it was
> designed by a crazy man – there is a clear attempt here to deny justice
> through perpetual process cycling.
>
>
>
> The comment period on this travesty is now open:
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm
>
> I urge all NCSC members to comment along the following lines:
>
>
>
> ·         ICANN must respect the decision of the IRP panel.
>
> ·         ICANN has no justification for starting a de novo review process
> when its review panel has already decided that it acted in an unfair and
> discriminatory manner. To do so is to prolong the injustice.
>
> ·         ICANN has no business asking the GAC – or any other Advisory
> Committee – for political advice, it simply needs to conform to the IRP
> decision
>
>
>
> Please don’t allow ICANN to pretend that the public doesn’t want it to be
> accountable. Comment on this proposal!
>
>
>
> --MM
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100331/5179e528/attachment.html>