[ALAC] ICANN Accountability track news

[Holly Raiche]

Also  - thanks Olivier

My first thought is just an observation - about how much seems to be happening without a lot of time and thought - and consultation - as to what has to be achieved and by whom.  The rationale is, I”m sure, that we are all in a big rush to respond to the  US Government statement on ICANN and IANA. But it is looking more and more like a lot of movement - but perhaps in circles???

That said, we do not have the choice of not participating.  

I support Evan’s observations  on numbers, but that is probably not changeable.  It would, however, be nice to have an explanation from someone (in case anyone is in charge) as to when this chart was formed, tasks and numbers assigned, etc.  

Next observation - we do have to get moving on a process for selection of 8 people.  But first - what sort of time ware we asking of people, and to what end - i.e., what are the end products of both circles, and in what timeframe?  We need those answers before we ask anyone to put their hand up.

There is now a very clear need for the FCWG taking up the accountability issue - to feed thoughts/suggestions etc to whomever puts their hand up for either of the circles. And I would also suggest that we make accountability as the topic for a multi stakeholder forum in Los Angeles (and yes, I”m happy to organise).  It would at least get different parties around the one table, and add clarity and input into whomever is doing what on the accountability issues.

So please, first, is there any more information on the accountability circles, and next - what is the timeframe for selection of 8 people?

Thanks

Holly

 
On 6 Aug 2014, at 6:10 pm, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> Thanks for this, Olivier.
> 
> So every AC and SO gets to appoint up to 7 people to the Assembly, except
> for the GNSO which gets .... 16?
> 
> And if I read this right we have an immediate need to choose 7 people for
> the assembly and 1 person for the coordination group. How do you anticipate
> these people will be chosen? By a similar process to that which chose the
> IANA CG reps? Or will that selection be delegated to the FCWG?
> 
> The graphic notes that the Assembly will meet at ICANN51, however no such
> schedule has been offered for the coordination group.
> 
> - Evan
> 
> 
> On 6 August 2014 03:37, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> 
>> Dear ALAC,
>> 
>> 
>> SO/AC & SG Chairs have held a call on Monday to discuss the ICANN
>> Accountability track, the creation of working groups relating to this
>> track and its own relation to the NTIA stewardship transition track.
>> 
>> The call looked at a first draft of a diagram supplied by ICANN staff
>> and comments were received, some of them being quite negative about the
>> track itself. There was concern shown that the creation of two
>> additional committees would stress the volunteer community. There was
>> also concern shown that the Community Coordination Group on
>> Accountability & Governance would contain 7 advisors selected by the
>> Board Governance Committee. GNSO members also complained that the GNSO
>> would only have 1 person on this committee. Finally, for the Community
>> Assembly on Accountability & Governance, although up to 7 participants
>> could be appointed per SO/AC and 4 per SG, some call participants asked
>> that additional observers should be welcome. Others asked that the
>> Community Assembly on Accountability & Governance should actually be a
>> Cross Community Working Group (CWG), structured and selected as such -
>> and of course led by the community.
>> 
>> Please find attached the draft that Staff sent as a result of the
>> discussion. It is not vastly different from its first version and is
>> therefore likely to change - and I therefore ask for your comments that
>> I could relay to ICANN Staff.
>> 
>> On a related topic, as you know the ALAC has decided to delegate its
>> groundwork on the accountability track to the Future Challenges WG. As
>> we are at preliminary stage & the track has not started yet, I am
>> sending this email to the ALAC working list but as soon as the track
>> launches, discussion will take place in the FCWG.
>> 
>> Kindest regards,
>> 
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
>> ALAC Chair
>> 
>> 
>> A new diagram was
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> 
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
> 
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> 
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)