[ALAC] Fwd: draft NCSG accountability statement

Tue Aug 12 17:30:58 UTC 2014

I agree the statement could do with some tightening up, but ALAC wordsmiths
are good at putting ideas down tactfully and succinctly.  

-----Original Message-----
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2014 2:15 a.m.
To: Evan Leibovitch
Cc: ICANN ALAC list
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: draft NCSG accountability statement

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-c
>> rocker-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+Committe
> e+(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+(ALA
C)