One more thing to consider on our upcoming call: we need an Executive Summary for our draft report. Attached and below is my first draft for your consideration:
DRAFT Executive summary for SOAC-Accountability report
The SO/AC Accountability project for Work Stream 2 had its genesis at an early stage of the CCWG-Accountability track, when SO/AC representatives insisted on new powers to hold the ICANN corporation accountable to the global
internet community. ICANN board members and staff then asked, “What about SO/AC accountability?“ And as one of our independent experts asked, “Who watches the watchers?” Those questions led to a creation of a Work Stream 2 project to review and recommend
improvements to accountability, transparency, and participation within ICANN SOs and ACs.
This draft report reflects several months of research and deliberation, starting with exploration of to whom the ICANN ACs and SOs are accountable. On that question, our working group achieved quick consensus: each AC
and SO is accountable to the segment of the global internet community that each AC/SO was designated to represent in the ICANN Bylaws.
This conclusion was the basis for Track 1 of our work: reviewing accountability, transparency, and participation with respect to the designated community of each SO/AC and Subgroup. We were keen to examine the extent to
which SO/AC/Subgroups were reaching out to, and open to, members of their designated community who were not yet participating. In Track 1 we recommend 21 “best practices” that should be considered by each SO/AC/Subgroup, to the extent these practices are
applicable and an improvement over present practices.
In Track 2, we considered the suggestion for a “Mutual Accountability Roundtable,” originally described as a concept where “multiple actors are accountable to each other”. That concept clashed with the fundamental consensus
that ICANN SOs and ACs are only accountable to the designated community they were created to serve and represent. On this basis, we recommend that a Mutual Accountability Roundtable not be formally implemented by ICANN.
Track 3 was where we assessed whether the new Independent Review Process (IRP) should also become a tool to challenge AC and SO activities. On this question, we conclude that 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.
We look forward to community response to our draft report.