[ALAC] Board Response to Statement made during the ICANN 50 Public Forum by GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies

Tue Jul 8 00:29:39 UTC 2014

Hi, Leon.

The Accountability track mentioned by Steve refers to this -
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en
.

The ICANN community was invited to comment on the document and also to
select its representatives to the soon to be established Accountability
Working Group.

What the board is saying is that it takes the work of enhancing ICANN's
accountability seriously and that it will work with the ICANN community to
do so.  It is also saying that the work cannot be done without the
participation of the community.

The finish line will be determined by the work of the Working Group, which
will involve consultations with the broader ICANN community.

The Board's message has lots of goodwill in it. It is a response to a group
comment at the public forum that wants certain changes to aspects of ICANN
accountability. Rather than create a separate process for dealing with
that, the Board is pointing out that a mechanism for enhancing
accountability that involves the community is underway and it invites the
group to participate actively together with other members of the community.

It would be good if the ALAC sends its strongest accountability experts to
the Working Group.

Best regards,

Rinalia

On Jul 8, 2014 7:25 AM, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
wrote:

> Thanks Rinalia. This is very useful information.
>
> It seems to me that Steve’s response let’s us see that there’s an “already
> planned accountability track” in which regardless of our active
> participation or not, the goal’s been set and it would seem it’s just a
> matter of “process” to get to where said track has already set the finish
> line. Furthermore, it surprises me that he emphasizes “your active
> participation” as if the community hadn’t been active on the subject.
> Suddenly it seems that all those statements that have been sent to the
> Board and which have been disregarded, didn’t even exist to begin with to
> the eyes of the Board. That worries me and hope worries others as well.
>
> As an incoming member of the Board, which would you consider to be “active
> participation” by Acs/SOs enough to be taken into account by the Board?
> Would it be fair to say that “active participation” depends at some level
> on “active consideration and action in consequence” by the Board?
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> León
>
> El 07/07/2014, a las 18:09, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <
> rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> escribió:
>
> > FYI
> >
> > Rinalia
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "Steve Crocker" <steve at shinkuro.com>
> > Date: Jul 8, 2014 1:30 AM
> > Subject: [icann-board] Response to Statement made during the ICANN 50
> > Public Forum by GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies
> > To: <mllemineur at gmail.com>, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com>, <
> > rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, <krosette at cov.com>, "Elisa Cooper" <
> > Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "Michele
> > Neylon - Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.com>, "Keith Drazek" <
> > keith.drazek at neustar.biz>, "Jonathan Robinson" <
> > jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
> > Cc: "Icann-board ICANN" <icann-board at icann.org>, "David Olive" <
> > David.Olive at icann.org>
> >
> > Dear GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies,
> >
> > On behalf of the ICANN Board I thank you for your statement at the ICANN
> > public forum on 26 June with regards to ICANN accountability.  It's
> copied
> > below for reference.
> >
> > The Board heard your statement and we agree that trust in ICANN's
> > accountability processes and mechanisms is of great importance to present
> > and future success.  We look forward to your active participation in the
> > already planned accountability track along with the rest of the
> community.
> > This will be, as you note in your statement, an important area of ICANN’s
> > work.  And let me emphasize “your active participation.”  This cannot be
> > done without you.
> >
> > As you know, ICANN’s efforts to improve the accountability mechanisms are
> > ongoing.  The work that involves the community includes the work of the
> AoC
> > ATRT process, with the most recent developments reflected in the Board
> > approved ATRT2 recommendations during the ICANN 50 meeting.
> >
> > Thank you again for your input and we look forward to your continued work
> > in this area.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Steve Crocker
> >
> > Chairman, ICANN Board
> >
> > P.S. I hope I included everyone who participated in your statement.  If
> > not, please accept my apologies and forward to all the appropriate
> people.
> >
> >
> > *Statement made during the ICANN 50 Public Forum*
> > I’m Keith Drazek, I’m Chair of the Registries Stakeholder Group, with me
> > are the leaders of all of the GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups and
> Constituencies.
> >
> > I’m happy to report that the GNSO community took up Fadi’s challenge from
> > the Opening Ceremony to seek harmony this week in London. Instead of a
> song
> > or two, the statement we’re about to read represents an unprecedented --
> > yes unprecedented -- event. It only took us 50 meetings, but I think the
> > rarity of what you’re witnessing this afternoon sends a very strong
> message
> > about our views.  The GNSO community, with all our diversity and
> > occasionally competing interests, has come together to unanimously
> support
> > the following:
> >
> > The entire GNSO joins 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 GNSO community, it
> is
> > a necessary and integral element of the IANA stewardship transition.
> >
> > True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or
> > to some vague definition of "the world."  It does not mean that
> governments
> > should have the ultimate say over community policy without regard to the
> > rule of law.  Rather, the Board's decisions must be open to challenge and
> > theBoard 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 stewardship 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.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > icann-board mailing list
> > icann-board at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-board
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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)
>
>