[ALAC] Fwd: Re: Joint RySG and BC Position Statement on ICANN Staff's Proposed Accountability Process
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Thu Aug 14 08:01:09 UTC 2014
Dear ALAC members,
a follow-up on the Accountability thread. You will note the email from
Theresa Swinehard responding to the Statements which were made by the
ISPCP, the RySG/BCEC joint Statement and the NCSG Statement.
I have indicated to Keith Drazek that on the whole, ALAC members mostly
support the main lines of the Statements that were presented although
not in all its details.
Another SO/AC/SG Call will take place in a few hours. Are there any
additional lines I should develop on the call, based on Theresa
Swinehart's answer below?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Joint RySG and BC Position Statement on ICANN Staff's
Proposed Accountability Process
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 02:00:27 +0000
From: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>
To: Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, 'Drazek, Keith'
<kdrazek at verisign.com>, Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade at icann.org>, John
Jeffrey <john.jeffrey at icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>,
Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
CC: 'Byron Holland' <byron.holland at cira.ca>, heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca
<heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>, 'Jonathan Robinson'
<jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, 'Louie Lee' <louie at louie.net>, 'Olivier
MJ Crepin-Leblond' <ocl at gih.com>, 'Patrik Fältström' <paf at netnod.se>,
'Jun Murai' <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, 'Lars-Johan Liman' <liman at netnod.se>,
'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, 'Kristina Rosette'
<krosette at cov.com>, rafik.dammak at gmail.com <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>,
'William Drake' <william.drake at uzh.ch>, 'Rudi Vansnick'
<rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, 'Michele Neylon :: Blacknight'
<michele at blacknight.com>, Susie Johnson <susie.johnson at icann.org>, Tina
Shelebian <tina.shelebian at icann.org>, 'Global Leadership'
<global_leadership at icann.org>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns at icann.org>,
Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
Dear Rafik, Keith, Elisa, and Tony
Thank you for all of your thoughtful additional input to the
accountability process. As I also shared in a note last week, we have
already considered further revisions to the accountability process based
on the feedback received on the draft shared on the SO/AC/SG call last
week. The revised process – along with a summary and analysis of the
public comments focused on process – will be posted this week. The
summary and analysis is focused on the process, not the substantive
input received on accountability topics and proposed solutions; those
inputs will be addressed through the process.
As you can imagine there is a wide range of interest in the
accountability process both within the ICANN community and outside the
community. This is a critical inflection point for all stakeholders
within ICANN – including ICANN itself. The accountability process and
looking at whether any additional accountability mechanisms are needed
in light of the changing historical relationship with the US is a
process of interest to the ICANN community and far beyond the ICANN
community. It would be premature (and not for ICANN staff) to
pre-determine the outcome of the process, and whether for example one of
the outcomes may be the establishment of the independent accountability
mechanism as called for in the GNSO joint statement in London. This is
for the process to address together with the other substantive issues
and solutions identified by the community.
It is this broader view of the goals and possibilities of this work that
ICANN is relying on in building the accountability process. Just as
there is a very important role for all ICANN stakeholders in this
conversation, there is also a need to ensure there’s acceptance outside
the immediate ICANN community. Thus the approach must allow for
variations of existing models, complemented by identifying external
expertise to enable this process to reach conclusions that are
acceptable both within the ICANN community and outside the ICANN
community. In the ICANN multistakeholder model, the range of interests
well outside the community are as equally relevant to this process as
the immediate ICANN community.
The multistakeholder ICANN Community is not separate and apart from the
ICANN entity. The cross community working group called for in your
letter may be independent of ICANN staff or Board, but it is not
independent from ICANN. We appreciated the concern about ICANN staff or
Board identifying up to 7 advisors to the coordination group and have
modified this to ensure the appointments are not done that way. We look
forward to discussing the revised process on the call on the 14 August.
As one small addition, I noted the reference to the GNSO’s policy
development process in Keith and Elisa’s note. While there is always
the possibility that some of this accountability work may result in
items that need to be referred to a PDP, this accountability process is
not a PDP.
There has been substantial time available for discussion of the
accountability process which began in May, ending in June, including the
ICANN 50 meeting. ICANN will post the process shortly after sharing it
with the SO/AC/SG leadership on 14 August – ICANN has a responsibility
to be responsive to the community as a whole to allow this process to
move forward. The work ahead is going to be challenging, and we trust
that you will bring the enthusiasm you bring to the process design to
the accountability work itself.
Kind regards,
Theresa
From: Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
<mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>
Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:56 PM
To: "'Drazek, Keith'" <kdrazek at verisign.com
<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>, Theresa Swinehart
<theresa.swinehart at icann.org <mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>, Fadi
Chehade <fadi.chehade at icann.org <mailto:fadi.chehade at icann.org>>, John
Jeffrey <john.jeffrey at icann.org <mailto:john.jeffrey at icann.org>>, David
Olive <david.olive at icann.org <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>, Robert
Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>
Cc: 'Byron Holland' <byron.holland at cira.ca
<mailto:byron.holland at cira.ca>>, Heather Dryden <heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca
<mailto:heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>>, Jonathan Robinson
<jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>,
'Louie Lee' <louie at louie.net <mailto:louie at louie.net>>, Olivier MJ
Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>>, 'Patrik Fältström'
<paf at netnod.se <mailto:paf at netnod.se>>, 'Jun Murai' <junsec at wide.ad.jp
<mailto:junsec at wide.ad.jp>>, 'Lars-Johan Liman' <liman at netnod.se
<mailto:liman at netnod.se>>, 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com
<mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, "krosette at cov.com
<mailto:krosette at cov.com>" <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>,
Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>,
William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>,
'Rudi Vansnick' <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>,
"'Michele Neylon :: Blacknight'" <michele at blacknight.com
<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>, Susie Johnson <susie.johnson at icann.org
<mailto:susie.johnson at icann.org>>, Tina Shelebian
<tina.shelebian at icann.org <mailto:tina.shelebian at icann.org>>, global
leadership team <global_leadership at icann.org
<mailto:global_leadership at icann.org>>, Duncan Burns
<duncan.burns at icann.org <mailto:duncan.burns at icann.org>>, Samantha
Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: Joint RySG and BC Position Statement on ICANN Staff's
Proposed Accountability Process
Dear Theresa
The ISPCP Constituency have discussed the staff proposal regarding the
proposed approach to handle the accountability process. We have also
discussed the official joint statement that was forwarded to ICANN on
behalf of the RySG and the BC Constituencies earlier today.
As a result of our deliberations the ISPCP now offer full support for
the statement made by those two Constituencies.
The ISPCP wish to make it clear that there is absolutely no desire to
delay this process or the transition of the IANA stewardship, but
consider it is essential that a bottom-up consensus process to design
independent accountability mechanisms for ICANN staff and board should
be controlled by the community– not by ICANN staff and board. The
mechanisms required to achieve that goal are already well proven and in
place – a CCWG.
The ISPCP firmly believe there is no proven need to set in place a
different structure and share the many concerns that have already been
expressed within the RySG and BC statement. In addition the ISPCP would
like to add weight to the call for ICANN to provide an analysis of its
consideration of the public comments that were submitted and how they
were taken into account when the new proposal was developed.
We remain totally committed to the bottom-up, consensus driven approach
that must remain the cornerstone of all activities if ICANN is achieve
the goals it has set.
Sincere Regards
Tony Holmes
Chair
ISPCP Constituency
*From:*Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com]
*Sent:* 12 August 2014 02:10
*To:* Theresa Swinehart; Fadi Chehade; John Jeffrey; David Olive; Robert
Hoggarth
*Cc:* Byron Holland; heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca
<mailto:heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>; Jonathan Robinson; Louie Lee; Olivier
MJ Crepin-Leblond; Patrik Fältström; Jun Murai; Lars-Johan Liman; Elisa
Cooper; tony holmes; Kristina Rosette; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>; William Drake; Rudi Vansnick; Michele
Neylon :: Blacknight; Susie Johnson; Tina Shelebian; Global Leadership;
Duncan Burns; Samantha Eisner
*Subject:* Joint RySG and BC Position Statement on ICANN Staff's
Proposed Accountability Process
Thank you, Theresa.
Recognizing that you’re working on a new update to the proposed Staff
Proposal, please find attached an official joint statement from the
Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and the Business Constituency (BC).
I expect that other community groups may choose to sign on this
statement following their internal, bottom-up, consensus-based
deliberations taking place this week, but, in the interest of time and
efficiency, we decided it was important to communicate our position
immediately so you can incorporate it before the release of your next
draft proposal.
I’ve also included the text below. Please let us know if you have any
questions.
Thanks and regards,
Keith
BEGIN TEXT
Dear Fadi and Theresa,
As noted in our previous public comments on “Enhancing ICANN
Accountability” the undersigned groups continue to support ICANN’s
decision to bring the question of its accountability forward for
community development. However, ICANN’s proposed mechanism to create a
two-tiered process in the form of a “Community Assembly” and “Community
Coordination Group” (Staff’s Proposal) deviates from ICANN’s
long-established policy development process and, instead, creates a new
process in which the community has a minority role in the final
development of policy.
We write to express our views and concerns with the process in its
current form, and call instead for ICANN to support a Cross Community
Working Group (CCWG) and to prevent additional delays in moving forward
on this important issue. ICANN staff must align its suggested approach
with the community on this critical issue.
At the outset, we note that the full community has not yet had the
opportunity to properly review, discuss, and comment on Staff’s
Proposal. Given ICANN’s determination to call for support from
community leaders on Staff’s Proposal, with little notice and a short
deadline, we believe we must make clear our concerns.
Our paramount concern is that a bottom-up consensus process to design
independent accountability mechanisms for ICANN staff and board should
be controlled by the community– not by ICANN staff and board.
Rather than proceeding with a community driven initiative, traditionally
accomplished through a CCWG, ICANN Staff have instead created a new
proposed bifurcated process without involving the community until a late
stage.[1] <#_ftn1> The Staff Proposal creates a process which provides
the community limited opportunity to identify issues for discussion
(the “Community Assembly”) and extremely limited and controlled
participation in the group that actually determines the issues from
which it will build recommendations (the “Community Coordination Group”).
Indeed, Staff’s Proposal for enhancing accountability proposes that
ICANN steer the accountability process through appointment of the
majority of members of the “Community Coordination Group”, which has the
primary role of (1) determining which community identified issues it
will respond to, (2) building solution requirements for issues, and (3)
creating and issuing the final report and recommendations. The actual
ICANN community is limited to one participant from each SO/AC on the
Community Coordination Group and has no say or oversight in the
selection of up to seven external advisors, ICANN Staff representatives,
Board liaison, or others.
The concession to the community is that it may participate as an
“observer” to the Community Coordination Group. While such observation
status may give some transparency to the process (as is required), it
does not allow for true community participation and actual ownership of
the process. Observation is not bottom-up participation in the process;
it is observation of a process.
Staff’s Proposal does not respond to the community’s near unanimous call
for a genuine bottom-up multi-stakeholder process. Indeed, the proposal
appears to ignore community comments and allows the ICANN staff and
Board to ultimately control the outcome of the accountability discussions.
We believe it is important to re-submit the GNSO community’s London
joint statement here, to ensure ICANN’s Staff and CEO have the
opportunity to refresh their understanding of the statement and that it
does not get lost in the mix of comments. We highlight particular
sections that relate directly to Staff’s Proposal:
/The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to *_support
community creation of an independent accountability mechanism_* that
provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by
ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with
the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not
only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the
entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the
IANA transition. /
/True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself,
or to some vague definition of "the world," nor does it mean that
governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject
to the rule of law. Rather, the Board's decisions must be open to
challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and
certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability
structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder
groups accountable under ICANN's governing documents, serves as an
ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of
precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and
the entire community. /
/As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the
opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability
structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues.
*_We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for
creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to
fulfill their obligations and support this community driven,
multi-stakeholder initiative_*./
In addition to the cross-community statement made in London, we took the
opportunity to review all the public comments submitted to ICANN in
connection with “Enhancing ICANN Accountability” to see if ICANN took
these comments into account in developing the Staff Proposal.
· Only 3 comments specifically made statements in support of the
originally posted staff approach.
· 23 out of 47 substantial submissions did not comment on the
originally posted staff approach, but rather provided specific ideas for
how to improve ICANN accountability.
· 20 key comments out of these 47 substantial submissions were
ignored by staff in developing their proposed approach:
o 12 submissions stated that ICANN staff or Board should not manage or
control the discussion;
o 7 submissions said specifically that the community or some
combination of community members and staff/board should select the experts;
o 4 submissions pointed out that ICANN is conflicted in this process;
o 4 submissions said a CCWG should be used;
Given our findings, we call on ICANN to provide a summary and analysis
of its consideration of public comments and how the public comments
support the Staff Proposal. We do not find such support in the comments
and, as a result, do not believe the Staff Proposal reflects a workable
process to advance the creation of a true independent accountability
mechanism called for by the community in London.
The community must be in control of the bottom-up, consensus process
that will create independent accountability mechanisms to act as
oversight on ICANN Staff and the Board – not the staff and Board. The
Staff Proposal is, in reality, a brand new construct sitting on top of,
and potentially stifling, the legitimate bottom-up community input
process. Such a mechanism will not only create delays in
implementation, but will limit community dialogue and participation as a
result. The groups signing on to this letter are not aligned with
Staff’s Proposal.
We believe the community is, however, aligned, in implementing a CCWG to
address these important issues. We agree that, as part of this process,
independent experts have a key role in providing advice to the
community. We do not agree that the experts should be selected
exclusively by ICANN staff and Board. We commit to participation in a
process of identifying and engaging with such experts, and call on
ICANN’s support in this endeavor.
We call on ICANN to prevent further delay and allow this process to move
forward so the community can begin prioritizing the accountability
reforms that are necessary to enable a timely and successful IANA
transition.
Sincerely,
Elisa Cooper
Chair,
GNSO Business Constituency
Keith Drazek
Chair,
GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group
END TEXT
*From:*Theresa Swinehart [mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org]
*Sent:* Friday, August 08, 2014 6:08 PM
*To:* Drazek, Keith; Fadi Chehade; John Jeffrey; David Olive; Robert
Hoggarth
*Cc:* Byron Holland; heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca
<mailto:heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>; Jonathan Robinson; Louie Lee; Olivier
MJ Crepin-Leblond; Patrik Fältström; Jun Murai; Lars-Johan Liman; Elisa
Cooper; tony holmes; Kristina Rosette; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>; William Drake; Rudi Vansnick; Michele
Neylon :: Blacknight; Susie Johnson; Tina Shelebian; Global Leadership;
Duncan Burns; Samantha Eisner
*Subject:* Re: Special August 4 Call with Fadi and the SO-AC-SG Leaders
on the ICANN Accountability Process - 13:00 GMT/UTC
Keith, all,
Per note also Patrik, we appreciate all the emails and thoughtful points
received both on the call on Monday and since then. We appreciate the
support and input to move this forward. We've looked at further
revisions, and are including that input with it in materials to
accompany the diagram for clarifying context.
Theresa
*From: *<Drazek>, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
*Date: *Friday, August 8, 2014 4:44 PM
*To: *Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org
<mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>, Fadi Chehade
<fadi.chehade at icann.org <mailto:fadi.chehade at icann.org>>, John Jeffrey
<john.jeffrey at icann.org <mailto:john.jeffrey at icann.org>>, David Olive
<david.olive at icann.org <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>, Robert Hoggarth
<robert.hoggarth at icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>
*Cc: *Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca
<mailto:byron.holland at cira.ca>>, Heather Dryden <heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca
<mailto:heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>>, Jonathan Robinson
<jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>,
Louie Lee <louie at louie.net <mailto:louie at louie.net>>, Olivier MJ
Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>>, Patrik Fältström
<paf at netnod.se <mailto:paf at netnod.se>>, Jun Murai <junsec at wide.ad.jp
<mailto:junsec at wide.ad.jp>>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se
<mailto:liman at netnod.se>>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com
<mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, tony holmes
<tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>,
"krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>" <krosette at cov.com
<mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
<mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight"
<michele at blacknight.com <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>, Susie Johnson
<susie.johnson at icann.org <mailto:susie.johnson at icann.org>>, Tina
Shelebian <tina.shelebian at icann.org <mailto:tina.shelebian at icann.org>>,
global leadership team <global_leadership at icann.org
<mailto:global_leadership at icann.org>>, Duncan Burns
<duncan.burns at icann.org <mailto:duncan.burns at icann.org>>, Samantha
Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>
*Subject: *Re: Special August 4 Call with Fadi and the SO-AC-SG Leaders
on the ICANN Accountability Process - 13:00 GMT/UTC
Fadi, Theresa, David and Rob,
Thank you for socializing ICANN staff's suggested approach for managing
the ICANN Accountability process during Monday's special call with the
SO-AC-SG leaders.
I also welcome your understanding from Monday's call that most community
leaders would need some additional time to consult with our respective
communities and groups before any possible "alignment" could take place.
That said, the RySG (and I believe the broader community) is as anxious
to get started on this work as you are, so we are committed to sending
you our views next week.
As I indicated during the call, the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG)
has formed an internal ICANN Accountability WG to facilitate our
participation and input into the IANA Transition and ICANN
Accountability tracks. Our WG met on Tuesday and has since been hard at
work evaluating the Staff proposal.
We expect to have more substantive and formal comments for you next week
after our WG's recommendation is reviewed and approved by the full RySG.
Until such time, please be advised that the RySG is *not* aligned with
the Staff proposal as discussed on Monday and *not* aligned with the
subsequent "Version 13" of the document circulated later that night.
As I indicated during Monday's call, we have serious concerns with the
Staff proposal. Based on subsequent conversations with other community
leaders, I understand the RySG is not alone. There is no community
alignment with the Staff proposal at this time because most of us (a)
have questions and/or concerns, (b) haven't had a chance to adequately
discuss it with our communities, or (c) both.
Thank you for your agreement on Monday's call that the community leaders
would be afforded the time needed to properly consult our communities in
a bottom-up, consensus-based manner on this critical issue.
Finally, as requested during the Monday call, to help us better
understand the staff proposal, please send to this group the Staff
summary and analysis of public comments on which the proposal was based.
Sincerely,
Keith
On Aug 5, 2014, at 12:03 AM, "Theresa Swinehart"
<theresa.swinehart at icann.org <mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>> wrote:
All,
Thank you for the very useful call today and good discussions. We
appreciate the efforts of all and the importance of these
discussions as we work together. Please find attached the next
version of the draft graphic, to include observers and participants
in the Coordination Group are expected to be engaged in the process,
in their respective roles.
We appreciate some expressed thoughts over the use of the term
'Assembly'. If there are suggestions for a better name/term, please
let us know.
As noted on the call, both the Assembly and the Coordination Group
must operate in an open and transparent manner.
Kind regards,
Theresa
*From: *Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org
<mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>
*Date: *Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:32 PM
*To: *David Olive <david.olive at icann.org
<mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>, Byron Holland
<byron.holland at cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland at cira.ca>>, Heather
Dryden <heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca <mailto:heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>>,
Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
<mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>, Louie Lee <louie at louie.net
<mailto:louie at louie.net>>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com
<mailto:ocl at gih.com>>, Patrik Fältström <paf at netnod.se
<mailto:paf at netnod.se>>, Jun Murai <junsec at wide.ad.jp
<mailto:junsec at wide.ad.jp>>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se
<mailto:liman at netnod.se>>, Elisa Cooper
<Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com
<mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, tony holmes
<tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>,
"krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>" <krosette at cov.com
<mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, William Drake
<william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, Rudi Vansnick
<rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, "Michele
Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.com
<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>, "Drazek, Keith"
<kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
*Cc: *Susie Johnson <susie.johnson at icann.org
<mailto:susie.johnson at icann.org>>, Tina Shelebian
<tina.shelebian at icann.org <mailto:tina.shelebian at icann.org>>, Robert
Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org
<mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>, global leadership team
<global_leadership at icann.org <mailto:global_leadership at icann.org>>,
Duncan Burns <duncan.burns at icann.org
<mailto:duncan.burns at icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner
<Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>
*Subject: *Special August 4 Call with Fadi and the SO-AC-SG Leaders
on the ICANN Accountability Process - 13:00 GMT/UTC
All,
In follow-up to David's note, and the dialogue on the SO-AC-SG
leaders call 17 July, please find attached the draft graphic
reflecting the proposed accountability process. As noted in my blog
post updating on the process, we plan to post the process, next
steps with an accompanying summary document late next week.
We look forward to our dialogue and talking through the attached
with you on the 4 August call.
Kind regards,
Theresa
*From: *David Olive <david.olive at icann.org
<mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>
*Date: *Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:15 PM
*To: *Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca
<mailto:byron.holland at cira.ca>>, Heather Dryden
<heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca <mailto:heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>>, Jonathan
Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
<mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>, Louie Lee <louie at louie.net
<mailto:louie at louie.net>>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com
<mailto:ocl at gih.com>>, Patrik Fältström <paf at netnod.se
<mailto:paf at netnod.se>>, Jun Murai <junsec at wide.ad.jp
<mailto:junsec at wide.ad.jp>>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se
<mailto:liman at netnod.se>>, Elisa Cooper
<Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com
<mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, tony holmes
<tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>,
"krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>" <krosette at cov.com
<mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, William Drake
<william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, Rudi Vansnick
<rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, "Michele
Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.com
<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>, "Drazek, Keith"
<kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
*Cc: *Susie Johnson <susie.johnson at icann.org
<mailto:susie.johnson at icann.org>>, Tina Shelebian
<tina.shelebian at icann.org <mailto:tina.shelebian at icann.org>>, Robert
Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org
<mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>, global leadership team
<global_leadership at icann.org <mailto:global_leadership at icann.org>>,
Duncan Burns <duncan.burns at icann.org <mailto:duncan.burns at icann.org>>
*Subject: *[global leads] Special August 4 Call with Fadi and the
SO-AC-SG Leaders on the ICANN Accountability Process - 13:00 GMT/UTC
Dear SO-AC-SG Leaders:
On our 17 July call, Fadi and Theresa noted that ,as leaders of the
community, we should work closely to ensure that whatever next steps
emerges from the public comments on ICANN's
accountability process, we need to be aligned. We are finished
with the public comment analysis, and we would like to follow up
with a 4 August call, with those who are interested, to go over the
proposed process before we publish it. Our purpose is to make sure
that we understand how we came up with the process and that your
inputs are heard so that we come out totally synchronized and
aligned when we announce it to the ICANN community. A copy of
the transcript of 17 July call can be found at :
_https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdback&title=Event+Calendar_
A calendar invite will be sent to you shortly with the details for
this call on Monday, 4 August at 1300 UTC.
We hope you can join Fadi and Theresa on this call.
Best regards, David
David A. Olive
Vice President, Policy Development Support
General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Direct Line: +90.212.381.8727
Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611
Email: david.olive at icann.org <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>
www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>
<Coordination Group Graphic V13.pdf>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1>Indeed, we note the document outlining this new proposed
process was first provided to the community for input only after ICANN
was on version 13 of the document.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: body_part_0.rtf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 198642 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20140814/f8bb8678/body_part_0.rtf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG-Stmt-AccountabilityPlan.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 72230 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20140814/f8bb8678/NCSG-Stmt-AccountabilityPlan.pdf>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list