[ALAC] Fwd: draft NCSG accountability statement

Tue Aug 12 16:16:02 UTC 2014

Thanks Evan for sharing this draft.

I agree with Holly.

Fatimata
On Aug 12, 2014 11:39 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> 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)
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>