I agree with Holly. I can be shortened somehow. I can agree with the statement. -ed On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
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@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@gmail.com> Date: 11 August 2014 17:54 Subject: Re: draft NCSG accountability statement To: NCSG-DISCUSS@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@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
Thune & Rubio certainly deserve a place in the Accountability discussion!
Enviado desde mi iPad
_________________________ email carlosraul@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@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-crocker-...
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@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...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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...)
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.