[ALAC] Fwd: draft NCSG accountability statement

Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org
Tue Aug 12 08:13:06 UTC 2014


Hello all.

The following is the current draft of the NCSG statement on the current
ICANN Accountability processes.

I ask my fellow At-Largers to read and consider this statement; I would
like to suggest ALAC's endorsing it.

- Evan




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com>
Date: 11 August 2014 17:54
Subject: Re: draft NCSG accountability statement
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu


Dear All

I have made some edits to the google doc mostly tightening up the language.
Updated text is posted below for your ease of reference

Regards

Cintra Sooknanan



DRAFT

Proposed NCSG Statement on ICANN Staff’s Accountability Plan  v.03

The NCSG appreciates this opportunity to provide feedback regarding the
ICANN Staff’s non-stakeholder led proposal for further work on “Enhancing
Accountability” at ICANN.

A number of public comments and discussions in London focused on the
inherent conflict of interest behind staff developing its own
accountability and transparency mechanisms, so it was surprising to see
that input had not been taken into account in the development of this
proposal. NCSG notes its disappointment with the staff having skipped the
step of providing a synthesis of the community feedback received from the
ICANN public comments forum and the London accountability discussions. Over
a month ago, staff assured it was working on this during GNSO Council and
SO/AC leadership calls since the London meeting; normally, staff can
produce a synthesis of a comment period within a week, so we are at a loss
to explain this delay.

NCSG reiterates its request to see the synthesis of public input upon which
staff relied in the formulation of its accountability proposal.  It is
impossible to know where the components of staff’s proposal come from and
on what basis they are called for, without being privy to staff’s
assessment of the public input on the subject. It is difficult to find
those elements in the written comments to effectively evaluate the
proposal.

At a time when the world is indeed watching ICANN to discern if it can be
trusted without NTIA oversight of its global governance functions, and is
particularly interested in the formulation of a proposal for resolving
ICANN’s accountability crisis; to skip the step of providing the rationale
for staff’s proposal, including its basis in the community’s stakeholder
comments, seems imprudent at best.  From its inception, the community
should have been engaged in the formulation of the proposal, not pressured
into signing-off on a staff proposal at the 11th hour.  This is an example
of top-down policymaking, which runs counter to ICANN’s bottom-up
methodology and may inspire mistrust on the part of the stakeholders.

Regarding the substance of the staff proposal, the NCSG does not support it
as currently drafted.  Of particular concern is the proposed Community
Coordination Group (CCG), which would prioritize issues identified by the
community and build solutions for those issues.  As proposed by staff, this
group is too heavily controlled by the ICANN board and staff and as such it
replicates the problem of ICANN’s accountability structures being circular
and lacking independence.

We reiterate that given the overwhelming number of public comments
submitted supporting the need for an independent accountability mechanisms,
it is unclear on what basis ICANN staff proposed a solution in which the
ICANN board and staff would fill a large number of the seats on the CCG.
 It is also unclear on what basis staff thinks board-picked advisors should
have an equal voice as representatives of community members.  Outside
experts are welcome and can provide valuable input, but they should be
selected by and report to the community not the board or staff, for
independent accountability to be achieved.

An advisor’s role must be clarified as an informational role, rather than a
decision making role that representatives of stakeholder interests would
hold in a bottom-up process.  It is also necessary that the role of any
ICANN board or staff on this CCG serve in a non-decision making, support or
liaison function.   For the CCG to have legitimacy as a participatory form
of democracy, the decision-making members must consist of stakeholders, not
the ICANN board and staff.  The make-up, roles and responsibilities of the
members of the proposed CCG must be reformulated in a more bottom-up
fashion by the community for this proposal to be acceptable.




On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg at isoc-cr.org>
wrote:

> Thune & Rubio certainly deserve a place in the Accountability discussion!
>
> Enviado desde mi iPad
>
> _________________________
> email carlosraul at gutierrez.se
> skype carlos.raulg
> cel   +506 8335 2487
> home  +506 4000 2000
>
> Apartado 1571-1000
> San jose COSTA RICA
>
>
> El 11/08/2014, a las 10:23, Edward Morris <emorris at MILK.TOAST.NET>
> escribió:
>
> Hi Avri,
>
> Thanks for doing this.
>
> Would it be possible to insert the word "transparency" in the document
> somewhere? I'd suggest here:
>
>
> inherent conflict of interest behind staff developing its own
> accountability *and transparency* mechanisms, so it was surprising to see
> that input had
>
>
>
> but anywhere is fine. The important thing is to keep the concept alive,
> and the concept of accountability broad.
>
> I'll note that the Thune-Rubio letter that so concerned Mr. Chehade:
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/thune-rubio-to-crocker-31jul14-en.pdf
>
> calls for a FOIA type mechanism at ICANN. In debating accountability
> structures I don't want to lose sight of the fact that accountability
> without transparency is impossible.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>



-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56



More information about the ALAC mailing list