[ALAC] Fwd: draft NCSG accountability statement

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Aug 12 14:55:55 UTC 2014


I share many of Holly's concerns with the specific wording.

I do believe that we need an "official" 
mechanism, one that, IF they can come to closure 
on recommendation, binds ICANN to act.

I have some problems with the proposed schema, 
but parts of it can be fixed (such as the Board 
not naming advisors, but proposing names, and 
those advisors being bound to advise not decide).

I do believe that we ultimately need a relatively 
small group to draft something. One of the 
problems AND strengths of the multi-stakeholder 
model is that not all stakeholders agree with 
each other. That's why we need them all involved. 
But it also means that compromises will be needed 
to get agreement. That is VERY hard to do in a 
very large group. As an example, Evan has asked 
why the proposal calls for 7 people from each 
AC/SO and 16 from the GNSO. I cannot speak to the 
specific numbers, but the overall answer is that 
the disparate parts of the GNSO have claimed (and 
apparently convincingly to some) that the SGs are 
so different from each other that they each need 
to be able to speak with their own voice. I am 
not defending the outcome, just illustrating the 
differences going into the process.

That time is flying by and we have no action is without doubt true.

Olivier - when is the next AC/SO leaders call 
scheduled? If they are going to publish the MP3 
and transcript, what is the rationale for not 
allowing us to listen in real time?

Alan

At 12/08/2014 08:14 AM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>Hi Evan
>
>I share the sentiments.  However, the statement 
>itself is repetitive and, in being so, 
>unnecessarily unpleasant.  The basic comment is 
>that staff have not provided a synthesis of 
>comments.  There may be a dozen reasons why it 
>hasn’t been done, so let’s not assume they are 
>all involved in a conspiracy, and give them the 
>benefit of the doubt - and just ask them to do 
>what they do all the time, saying that the issue 
>is now on the table and it would be really to 
>gather what has already been said - with thanks 
>for their help.  We can be firmer if the summary still isn’t provided.
>
>The reason - from the ALAC perspective - must be 
>that we will be working on input into the ICANN 
>consideration of the issue and want to 
>understand what work has already been done.
>
>That said, we need to start work on some basic 
>documentation for the accountability task of the FCWG.
>
>See - we really do need the stuff
>
>Holly
>
>
>On 12 Aug 2014, at 6:13 pm, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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)
>
>_______________________________________________
>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)




More information about the ALAC mailing list