Hi all On this topic of the MAR, just a couple of thoughts. I don't really have a view about the forum etc - using existing groups of people makes sense where possible. What I am interested in tho is the conversation, and who can participate. - a conversation where different SOs and ACs, the ICANN Board and the ICANN Organisation can ask each other questions about performance, success etc isn't quite sharing best practice, because the purpose is different. Sharing best practice is about sharing ideas and lessons. A performance or accountability discussion leads to different questions - it's about the various parts of the ICANN family supporting each other's development by e.g. asking questions that are too hard to ask internally, or those that come from a different perspective. If that isn't explicit, then people don't have "permission" to ask that sort of question. And my experience of ICANN generally is that the various silos aren't that interested in hearing what others think of them (just my experience - yours may differ). - the proposal was for a public discussion. The SO/AC leadership is anything but that, and to do its function needs to not be a public forum. So to me a viable way to meet those needs would be an occasional open SO/AC discussion online with that specific agenda item. Otherwise I think the possibility and promise of the MAR will be lost. Thanks for your consideration. Jordan On 12 December 2016 at 15:50, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
For our next SOAC Accountability call, please review the latest from Sub Team 2, who are drafting our Report to the CCWG.
The attached draft report draws from our previous documents and discussions, and narrows our work to 3 tracks:
Track 1. Review and develop recommendations to improve SO and AC processes for accountability, transparency, and participation that are helpful to prevent capture. [yet to be drafted, since we are awaiting SOAC responses to our questionnaire]
Track 2. Evaluate the proposed “Mutual Accountability Roundtable” to assess its viability and, if viable, undertake the necessary actions to implement it. The preliminary conclusion in the attached doc is on page 4:
We conclude that the Mutual Accountability Roundtable as originally described is more of a transparency exercise where best practices may be shared. While this exercise is viable, we do not recommend it for formal implementation.
SO and AC chairs have a standing email list and may convene calls and meetings at any time. That creates an appropriate and adequate forum for sharing of experiences and best practices on accountability to their respective stakeholders.
Track 3. Assess whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities. The preliminary conclusion in the attached doc is on page 5:
The IRP would not be applicable to SO & AC activities, as the IRP is currently described in Bylaws. While the IRP could be made applicable by amending bylaws significantly, the IRP should not be made applicable to SO & AC activities, because it is complex and expensive, and there are easier alternative ways to challenge an AC or SO action or inaction
Before our next call, please suggest edits to tracks 2 and 3 in the Google Doc, at https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XrP2QiGv04qNtn_ EuOR3nEc6uAN2ySlpQM5f69PNI8/edit?usp=sharing
—Steve
_______________________________________________ Ws2-so_ac mailing list Ws2-so_ac@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-so_ac
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ * +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz *A better world through a better Internet*