My apologies to be so delayed in comments. In general, Steve has done an excellent job, and I do regret that I was consumed by Internet governance crisises elsewhere. I look forward to our call. GENERAL COMMENT: I want to suggest that 'acting in the public interest in decisions and policies actually has to be more generally debated and considered, but I am not comfortable, right now, with saying it is limited to ensuring registration and resolution services. PROPOSED CHANGE: ICANN's inclusion of the public interest should be focused on the core mission and core values. The BC members recognize that decisions taken about ICANN"s core functions have implications and impact on the Internet's operation as a stable, secure, resilient, and predictable network of networks and a core infrastructure platform relied on by the world's Internet and online users. We strongly urge that during the Strat Plan process that the community be further consulted and encouraged to discuss the scope and scale of ICANN's responsibility to act in the public interest, and how to reach consensus within ICANN's stakeholders regarding this important aspect. BACKGROUND COMMENT: For instance, ICANN's program of introducing new gTLDs has been filled with decisions that could be seen as ensuring registration and resolution services, but overlooked the critical impact on risks and threats [negative externalities] transferred over to the actual builders and operators of Internet and Internet services, such as name collisions. It took a strong and organized small ad hoc effort across several constituencies and ALAC and GAC to demand that ICANN 'adjust' its attitude and approach to study and understand how to address in a somewhat responsible manner informing the affected parties who operate networks and networking services. GAC related recommendations: CHANGE: THE BC SUPPORTS CERTAIN OF THE ATRT2 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTS THAT THE SUGGESTIONS IN SOME INSTANCES NEED FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE GAC MEMBERS ABOUT IMPLEMENTABILITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS, INCLUDING COSTS AND SUPPORT WHICH MAY BE NEEDED. SECONDLY, THE BC DISAGREES THAT ANY ORGANIZATION WITHIN ICANN SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO ONLY HAVE OPEN MEETINGS. THE GAC HAS BEEN MAKING GREAT PROGRESS ON OPENING MEETINGS, AND POSTING TRANSCRIPTS, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN ANY GROUP NEEDS TO HAVE PRIVATE -- OR MEMBER ONLY -- DELIBERATIONS. WE WOULD PREFER TO SEE A MORE ASPIRATIONAL RECOMMENDATION THAT RECOGNIZES THE NEED FOR PRIVATE CONSULTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS. WE ALSO NOTE THAT ICANN'S SUPPORT OF THE GAC IS HIGHLY INADEQUATE IN INFRASTUCTURE SUPPORT FOR THE MEETING ROOMS THEY ARE GIVEN, WITH THE GROWTH AND EXPANSION OF THE GAC, AND THE INCREASED ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENTS WHO ACCOMPANY THE GAC OFFICIAL MEMBER. THIS INCREASED ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION SHOULD BE HIGHLY APPRECIATED, AND ICANN MUST DO A MUCH BETTER JOB OF PROVIDING A WELL SUITED MEETING ROOM ENVIRONMENT. PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS: in general, I support Steve's draft. However, I offer a further elaboration. POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL COMMENT: FINALLY, THE BC NOTES WITH DISAPPOINTMENT THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GAC OPENNESS WERE NOT ECHOED IN THE BOARD AND STAFF INTERACTIONS, AND THAT THE BOARD/STAFF CONSULTATIONS AND BOARD DELIBERATIONS ARE ACTUALLY MUCH MORE CLOSED THAN ANY OTHER GROUP AT ICANN, WITH THE AMOUNT OF BRIEFING, DISCUSSIONS AND CONSIDERATION DISCUSSIONS ARE NOW TOTALLY NON TRASPARENT, AND ARE OFTEN NOW DONE IN PRIVATE 'WORKSHOPS/RETREATS' WHERE BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF AND INVITED BRIEFERS MEET, WITH WITH EXTREMELY LIMITED TRANSPARENCY, IF ANY. AS AN ORGANIZATION THAT ASPIRES TO BE THE ROLE MODEL FOR TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED. THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST ONE FULL FACE TO FACE MEETING DURING AN ICANN MEETING, THAT IS ACTUALLY A SUBSTANTIVE BOARD MEETING, WITH THE ABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY TO SIT IN OBSERVER STATUS. FURTHER, THE PUBLIC FORUM NEEDS TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE PRESENT APPROACH. AT PRESENT, THE CHANGE THAT THE BOARD INITIATED TO PUT THEIR PROFORMA BOARD INTERACTION IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PUBLIC FORUM MEANS THAT THE BOARD COMPLETELY IGNORES THE COMMUNITY'S COMMENTS DURING THE PUBLIC FORUM. UNFORTUNATELY, AND REGRETABLY, THIS HAS LED TO A GROWING VIEW BY MANY, SINCE THEIR IS ALSO CONCERN ABOUT HOW PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE BEING ANALYZED, AND TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS, THAT INPUT AND PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESSES ARE LESS AND LESS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD. THIS IS A REGRETABLE BUT GROWING PERCEPTION. CONSIDERATION OF DECISION MAKING INPUTS AND APPEALS PROCESSES: ADDITIONAL COMMENT: 9.2: ICANN LACKS ACCOUNTABILITY AND APPEALS PROCESSES THAT ARE MEANINGFUL AND REFLECTIVE OF WHAT IS EXPECTED IN THE AOC, AND WORTHY OF AN ORGANIZATION WITH ICANN'S CORE MANDATE. IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE COMPOSITION OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY COMMITTEE BE INCLUSIVE OF THE COMMUNITY, NOT MADE UP OF OUTSIDE PARTIES WHO LACK ANY EXPERIENCE OR UNDERSTANDING OF ICANN AND ITS RESPONSIBILITIES. SUPPORTIVE WORK MAY BE DONE BY OUTSIDE EXPERTS. FURTHER, THE REVIEW AND POSSIBLE REFORM OF THE OMBUDSMAN OFFICE AND ITS INDEPENDENCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ALONGSIDE OTHER REVIEW MECHANISMS. FOR SOME TIME, THERE HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT CONCERN ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL AND THE RECONSIDERATION PROCESS. THE NEW GTLD PROGRAM IS NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE OF AREAS OF CONCERN, BUT IS A RECENT EXAMPLE. CROSS COMMUNITY DELIBERATIONS: I support Steve's comments, but they are a bit GNSO focused, and focused on gTLD policy. As this is about Cross Community Deliberations, I would like to broaden this a bit to include the topic of ICANN GOVERNANCE AND BUDGET/STRAT PLAN as examples for cross community deliberations. CHANGE: [The BC is part of the GNSO.] PROPOSED CHANGE: THE BC IS PART OF THE GNSO, HOWEVER, IN PARTICULAR OUR MEMBERS, AS BUSINESSES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT MUCH MORE THAN THE GTLD POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND GTLD POLICY. BUSINESSES ARE HIGHLY CONCERNED ABOUT SECURE, STBLE, PREDICTABLE AND RESILIENT OPERATION OF THE UNIQUE INDICATORS, AND OUR MEMBERS WERE ACTIVE IN THE SSR; IN THE FIRST ATRT1 WHERE WE WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE A CSG REP, UNLIKE THE ATRT2, WHICH LIMITED THE PARTICIPATION /MEMBERSHIP TO ONLY ONE FROM EACH HOUSE, THUS REDUCING PARTICIPATION FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE ATRT2 MEMBERSHIP. BUSINESSES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT ICANN GOVERNANCE ITSELF, AND TAKE SERIOUSLY OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE BOTTOM UP, CONSENSUS GUIDANCE AND INPUT TO THE BOARD AND SENIOR STAFF ABOUT THE BUDGET/OPERATIONAL PLAN, STRATEGIC PLAN AND DIRECTIONS OF ICANN. FURTHER EXAMINATION OF CROSS COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS AND DELIBERATIONS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS AND SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS SUCH. WE DO SUPPORT THE IMPORTANCE OF EVOLVING SUCH MECHANISMS, HOWEVER, WE HAVE SOME CONCERN THAT THE PRESENT APPROACH THAT IS BEING TAKEN IS VERY STAFF DRIVEN. A MODEL THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED COULD BE USE OF WORKING GROUPS, FULLY SUPPORTED BY ICANN RESOURCES AND FUNDING, SIMILAR TO THE EXPERT GROUP WITH APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL STAKEHOLDER GROUPS, TO CONSIDER STRATEGIC AND CROSS CUTTING ISSUES TO DEVELOP A MORE BOTTOM UP DRIVEN APPROACH. HOWEVER, WE WILL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO REINFORCE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE ATRT REVIEW PANELS AND TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS A RETURN TO A MORE REPRESENTATIVE INCLUSION OF AT LEAST ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM SGS. NEW COMMENT: ABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY TO FULFILL OUR RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PARTICIPATION ADN ENGAGEMENT: FINALLY, THIS REPORT IS BEING DELIVERED AT A TIME WHEN THE AMOUNT OF WORK AND BURDENSOME DEMANDS ON THE STAKEHOLDERS IS EXTREMELY HIGH. IT IS REGRETABLE THAT THE ATRT2 REPORT IS LACKING A FULL CURRENCY IN REFLECTION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING A COMMUNITY/STAKEHOLDER DRIVEN APPROACH VERSUS THE NEW GROWTH OF A STAFF AND TOP DOWN DRIVEN APPROACH. ADDITION: CHANGE: DNS THAT IS SAFE, SECURELY OPERATED, RELIABLE AND PREDICTABLE... Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2014, at 8:40 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

Steve,

I think the points made in the comments about the top and bottom pressures are well-stated. With regard to the cross-community working group section, I would think to add this:

An example of how top-down pressure is affecting the legitimacy of the constituencies and stakeholder groups can be seen in the executive appointment of cross community and expert working groups. It is not our point that the executive cannot convene such panels to help inform the organization's thinking, but the form, function and output of each ought to be aligned with the view of the community. Right now, the GNSO and ccNSO Councils are collaborating on just such a set of guidelines for the development of meaningful policy by cross community working groups. The ATRT2 committee should endorse this effort as an effective approach to this particular issue and as a general approach to others as they arise.

My two cents.

Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: BC comment on Accountability and Transparency Review Team recommendations From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: 2/17/14 4:54 pm To: "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@icann.org>

Attached is my first draft BC comment on recommendations from the second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2). ICANN’s comment page is here and the ATRT2 recommendations are here.

Initial comments close 21-Feb and reply comments close 15 March. Today begins our 14-day review period, putting us on track to submit comments by 3-March.

Marilyn will likely have initial edits, but all BC members are invited to REPLY ALL with edits (using TRACK CHANGES, please).

— Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination