Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Proposed Joint Statement on IANA Transition and ICANNAccountability?
Hi Olivier (and everyone) I would support the principles of the statement - not necessarily the words. I think what we can all agree on would be more accountability - within ICANN itself, but also accountability of the board. I'm not sure people want external structures. What Group 4 came up with was a staanding entity of some kind that includes all the elements of the ICANN community (and perhaps wider although - personally - not sure how that would work. So can we have general words about accountability structure of the Board that is independent of the Board - without getting more specific Hope that helps Holly On Wed 25/06/14 5:02 PM , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl@gih.com sent: 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 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [1] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [2] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... [3]) Links: ------ [1] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarge... [2] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atla... [3] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommuni...
I agree with Holly. I have serious problems with the wording of the first paragraph as it sounds like a prelude to litigation. (there certainly has never been a well-defined compact with *our* community) But otherwise I'm generally OK with the sentiment. On Jun 25, 2014 9:07 AM, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Hi Olivier (and everyone)
I would support the principles of the statement - not necessarily the words.
I think what we can all agree on would be more accountability - within ICANN itself, but also accountability of the board. I'm not sure people want external structures. What Group 4 came up with was a staanding entity of some kind that includes all the elements of the ICANN community (and perhaps wider although - personally - not sure how that would work. So can we have general words about accountability structure of the Board that is independent of the Board - without getting more specific
Hope that helps
Holly
On Wed 25/06/14 5:02 PM , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl@gih.com sent: 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 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [1]
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [2] ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... [3])
Links: ------ [1]
http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarge... [2]
http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atla... [3]
http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommuni...
_______________________________________________ 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...)
I believe we should be part of this statement. Maybe suggest changes in the wording that doesn’t sound like ALAC but for sure included as supporters of the sentiment the statement tries to show. Saludos, León El 25/06/2014, a las 10:44, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> escribió:
I agree with Holly. I have serious problems with the wording of the first paragraph as it sounds like a prelude to litigation.
(there certainly has never been a well-defined compact with *our* community)
But otherwise I'm generally OK with the sentiment. On Jun 25, 2014 9:07 AM, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Hi Olivier (and everyone)
I would support the principles of the statement - not necessarily the words.
I think what we can all agree on would be more accountability - within ICANN itself, but also accountability of the board. I'm not sure people want external structures. What Group 4 came up with was a staanding entity of some kind that includes all the elements of the ICANN community (and perhaps wider although - personally - not sure how that would work. So can we have general words about accountability structure of the Board that is independent of the Board - without getting more specific
Hope that helps
Holly
On Wed 25/06/14 5:02 PM , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl@gih.com sent: 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 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [1]
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [2] ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... [3])
Links: ------ [1]
http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarge... [2]
http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atla... [3]
http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommuni...
_______________________________________________ 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...)
My reservations is also precisely with the first paragraph. Things we need to note as a group, if we do not agree on the tone; we either need to have a revision that we can send, OR I believe we need to have a ALAC alternative if we don’t seek alignment with the GNSO. That said, I feel there will be an accountability vacuum post IANA transition, and other groups will attempt to fill that vacuum with, or without us. We need to act fast. Raf On 25 Jun 2014, at 10:48, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
I believe we should be part of this statement. Maybe suggest changes in the wording that doesn’t sound like ALAC but for sure included as supporters of the sentiment the statement tries to show.
Saludos,
León
El 25/06/2014, a las 10:44, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> escribió:
I agree with Holly. I have serious problems with the wording of the first paragraph as it sounds like a prelude to litigation.
(there certainly has never been a well-defined compact with *our* community)
But otherwise I'm generally OK with the sentiment. On Jun 25, 2014 9:07 AM, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Hi Olivier (and everyone)
I would support the principles of the statement - not necessarily the words.
I think what we can all agree on would be more accountability - within ICANN itself, but also accountability of the board. I'm not sure people want external structures. What Group 4 came up with was a staanding entity of some kind that includes all the elements of the ICANN community (and perhaps wider although - personally - not sure how that would work. So can we have general words about accountability structure of the Board that is independent of the Board - without getting more specific
Hope that helps
Holly
On Wed 25/06/14 5:02 PM , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl@gih.com sent: 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 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [1]
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [2] ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... [3])
Links: ------ [1]
http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarge... [2]
http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atla... [3]
http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommuni...
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
participants (4)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
h.raiche＠internode.on.net -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Raf Fatani