[ALAC] Fwd: Proposed Joint Statement on IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability?

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear All,

those of you having attended the Public Forum on Thursday afternoon,
will have seen the Stakeholder Groups of the GNSO stand united at the
microphone to deliver a common message. As you note below, the ALAC was
asked to join in the common Statement but did not stand with the GNSO SGs.
The reason hinged on two main points:

1. not enough time to discuss the issue in the ALAC and reach consensus
on what action to take.
2. concern over the use of the term: "meaningful review and adequate
redress for those harmed by ICANN action"
"Redress" is a loaded term that some in our community flagged as being
inappropriate. It implies compensation, which could leave ICANN open to
being repeatedly sued, thus taking the sharpness out of its contractual
regulatory role.

With no consensus, the ALAC was unable to sign the declaration.

Kind regards,

Olivier


On 25/06/2014 08:32, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> Please be so kind to also consider the email below, which includes the
> proposed text.
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	Proposed Joint Statement on IANA Transition and ICANN
> Accountability?
> Date: 	Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:20:01 +0000
> From: 	Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> To: 	Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com) <ocl at gih.com>
>
>
>
> Olivier,
>
>  
>
> Are you aware of this joint community statement under development
> (below)? I think we have a very unique opportunity, perhaps even
> unprecedented, for the community to come together around a common
> position and sign on to a statement calling for meaningful
> accountability reform. From all conversations I’ve had this week, there
> seems to be strong consensus around the principles outlined in the draft
> statement, and I think this is a critical issue for all of us. Do you
> have a sense of whether the ALAC might be able to join the GNSO (and
> possibly the ccNSO) and sign on before Thursday’s public forum?  Happy
> to discuss when we both find a few free minutes.
>
>  
>
> Also, not sure if you saw this from yesterday’s Board-GAC session, but
> /Fadi is attempting to reverse his NetMundial position on the
> interdependence of IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability:/
>
> / /
>
> /NETMUDIAL/
>
> /"These two processes are very interrelated. I may have used the word in
> the past 'separate'. I take that word back. They are related processes.
> They will run in parallel but they will inform each other. They are
> interdependent, they're interrelated, and if we are successful, we
> should get these processes to work on the same timeline."/
>
> / /
>
> /YESTERDAY (DURING BOARD-GAC MEETING)/
>
> /“I acknowledge the statement from the EU and assure them the
> accountability process will be very important. It is currently open and
> this is a time for you to contribute. We have to be careful how we tie
> this to the transition as there are elements in the community who want
> to delay the transition. This should not be about interdependence
> between the two processes but about them being interrelated./
>
>  
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
>  
>
> Keith  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> BEGIN TEXT:
>
>  
>
> 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.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>           “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for
>           the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed,
>           and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary,
>           privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
>           applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product.
>           If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
>           that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
>           communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
>           this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete
>           this message immediately.”
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html