FWIW, Robin’s dissent is fully in line with the official comments submitted by the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group during the last public comment period.

--MM

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 6:41 PM
To: Thomas Rickert
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report

 

Thanks, Thomas.  See below.

 

Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)

 

The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance.  Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure.  The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.

 

The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments.  Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate.   The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report.  The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making.  

 

Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability.  The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.

 

Robin Gross

 

On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:

 

Dear Robin,

as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.

 

Best,

Thomas 

 

---

rickert.net

 

Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>:

Dear Co-Chairs,

I have still not received a response to this request.  What is the process for submitting minority statements?  Please advise.

Thanks,
Robin

On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:

 

Dear Co-Chairs,

 

Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?

 

Thank you,

Robin

_______________________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

 

 

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community