May 2017 - comments-soac-accountability-14apr17@icann.org

[comments-soac-accountability-14apr17] FW: [Ext] India comments on Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability
by Patrick Dodson May 29, 2017

May 29, 2017

Submitting to the formal public comment system. Patrick Dodson From: <tsantosh(a)meity.gov.in> on behalf of T Santhosh <tsantosh(a)meity.gov.in> Date: Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 22:09 To: Patrick Dodson <patrick.dodson(a)icann.org> Cc: JS DeitY Rajiv Bansal <rajiv.bansal(a)nic.in>, Pradeep Kumar Verma <pradeep.verma(a)deity.gov.in>, "gac(a)icann.org" <gac(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] India comments on Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability Dear Patrick Please find below India comments on Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability. We apologise for the delay. 1) Draft Recommendations regarding SO/AC Accountability: a. While, the Independent Review Process (IRP) cannot be made applicable to disputes brought against or involving SO/ACs, it is advisable to have more clarity on procedures to challenge an AC or SO action or inaction. The draft recommendations should look into the feasibility of having an independent party dedicated to addressing such grievances. Even though, it suggests an Ombudsman complaint as a method to address grievances, it may not be the most expeditious process, since an Ombudsman cannot devote their entire time to this process. Therefore, a mechanism to hold SO/ACs to account other than the Ombudsman is needed. b. Furthermore, the draft recommendations must advise SO/ACs to regularly assess, if it is accomplishing its accountability commitments, taking into consideration a range of internal and external stakeholder perspectives. Reviews may include an analysis of strengths and challenges in addition to recommendations for improvement. The annual report that the SO/AC Groups publish (As per recommendation 5 on Pg.18 of Draft Recommendations), must also include these areas for improvement and a strategy that may be adopted to fill these gaps. 2) Draft Recommendations regarding SO/AC Transparency: a. In order to effectively thwart a risk of ‘capture’, it is imperative to ensure diversity in SO/AC/Groups. While speaking of diversity, the importance of ‘Geographic Diversity’ cannot be overstated. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that geographies (countries) where the largest number of internet users come from should be provided with voting rights and membership proportionate to the legions of internet users they seek to represent. Furthermore, each SO/AC must ensure equitable representation from each region. 3) Draft Recommendations regarding SO/AC Participation: a. It appears that fluency in English is a core skill for ICANN leaders. While, no data is available to substantiate this claim, the proportion of leaders fluent in English is estimated to be 90%, an alarmingly high number suggesting that deeper exclusion occurs when a representative is not fluent in English. In order to reach out to maximum number of community members, ‘Main Language’, must also include world’s top ten most widely spoken languages in addition to the official languages. Currently, newsletters and brochures are published only in the six Official UN Languages and this acts as a major barrier to entry for people belonging to popular language groups, that fall outside of this list. b. An indicative list of what may qualify as a ‘confidential matter’ may be provided (similar to an exemplary list provided for holding a closed meeting on Pg 6 of the Draft Recommendations). c. In addition to having a strategy for outreach to different community members, each SO/AC must at the end of the year assess its efficacy in enhancing participation from diverse parts of the community and must publish its findings. ________________________________ [1]<file:///C:/Users/dit867.INTRADIT/Downloads/Response_to_Public_Comment%20(2).docx#_ftnref1> https://www.afnic.fr/medias/documents/Dossiers_pour_actualites/2016_Icann_D… -- Warm Regards T.Santhosh Scientist 'E' / Additional Director Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology Government of India Electronics Niketan, 6 CGO Complex, New Delhi - 110003 (India) Tel: +91-11-24364741, 24301831

1 0

[comments-soac-accountability-14apr17] ICANN Board comments on CCWG-Acct Draft Recommendations for Enhancing SO/AC Accountability
by Melissa King May 27, 2017

May 27, 2017

Attached please find the ICANN Board comments on CCWG-Accountability Draft Recommendations for Enhancing SO/AC Accountability. Please let us know if you have any questions. Regards, Melissa ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Melissa King Vice President, Board Operations ICANN desk: +1-310-578-8929 mobile: +1-310-913-5916 melissa.king(a)icann.org<mailto:melissa.king@icann.org>

1 0

[comments-soac-accountability-14apr17] NCSG comments on SO/AC Accountability recommendations
by Matthew Shears May 26, 2017

May 26, 2017

Please see attached. Many thanks. -- Matthew Shears matthew(a)intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears

1 0

[comments-soac-accountability-14apr17] ISPCP Comments on Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability - 26 May 2017
by Chantelle Doerksen May 26, 2017

May 26, 2017

Dear ICANN Staff, On behalf of the ISPCP Constituency, they respectfully submit comments on the Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Chantelle

1 0

[comments-soac-accountability-14apr17] Business Constituency (BC) Comment on Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability.
by Steve DelBianco May 26, 2017

May 26, 2017

The ICANN Business Constituency (BC) submits this comment (below and attached) on Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability, a Work Stream 2 project of the CCWG-Accountability. (comment page at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en ) The BC supports the Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability, and offers these further comments: 1. The BC endorses the view that "each AC and SO is accountable to the segment of the global internet community that each SO/AC was designated to represent in the ICANN Bylaws.” 2. The BC supports the Track 1 recommendations for best practices, and would consider implementation in the BC "to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices.” 3. The BC supports the Track 2 recommendation that an "Accountability Roundtable be an optional addition to the Annual General Meeting, subject to approval of SO/AC chairs.” 4. The BC supports Track 3 recommendation that the IRP (Independent Review Process) "should not be made applicable to SO/AC activities, because it is complex and expensive, and there are easier alternatives to challenge an AC or SO action or inaction.” This comment was approved in accord with our charter. — Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

[comments-soac-accountability-14apr17] Ratification Pending: ALAC Statement on the Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 26, 2017

May 26, 2017

Dear All, Kindly find attached the ALAC Statement on the Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability. In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the Statement be transmitted to the ICANN public comment process, copying the ICANN Staff member responsible for this topic, with a note that the Statement is pending ALAC ratification. Once ratified, this Statement will be resubmitted incorporating updated ratification information in the introduction section. ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[comments-soac-accountability-14apr17] Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) comments on Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability
by svg＠milathan.ltd May 26, 2017

May 26, 2017

Please find attached, in PDF format, the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) comments on Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability. In the interest of time, the RySG did not conduct a formal vote on these comments. They were circulated and debated on our mailing list, with no member expressing opposition to their submission. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any member of the RySG Executive Committee should you have any questions. Best regards, Stéphane Van Gelder RySG Vice Chair (Policy)

1 0

[comments-soac-accountability-14apr17] SO/AC Accountability - Comment by John Poole
by John Poole May 26, 2017

May 26, 2017

Attached in PDF format is the comment submitted by John Poole, *domain name registrant* and *editor *DomainMondo.com

1 0

[comments-soac-accountability-14apr17] INTA Comments
by Lori Schulman May 21, 2017

May 21, 2017

Attached please find our comments. Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org<http://www.inta.org/> [cid:image005.jpg@01D270D2.1801CD20] Find us on: [Description: Description: Description: cid:F361C18F-02FE-4CF0-A43E-AA8566DC2514] Twitter<https://twitter.com/INTA> [Description: Description: LinkedIn] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groupInvitation?groupID=69899> [Description: Description: facebook-logo (2)] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/GoINTA?ref=ts> [Description: Description: pnpb_sig.png]

1 0

[comments-soac-accountability-14apr17] SAC093: SSAC Comments on the Draft Recommendations of the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 on SO/AC Accountability
by Julie Hedlund May 19, 2017

May 19, 2017

On behalf of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) please see the attached document: SAC093: SSAC Comments on the Draft Recommendations of the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 on SO/AC Accountability. Best regards, Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

1 0