SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - draft report for plenary on 10-Mar-2017
To our CCWG colleagues: Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC Accountability group of Work Stream 2. Our group looks forward to your questions and comments when we meet in Copenhagen. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2 Executive Summary: 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, ACs, and Subgroups. This draft report reflects several months of research and deliberation, starting with exploration of to whom ICANN ACs and SOs are accountable. On that question, our working group reached 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 25 “best practices” that should be considered by each SO/AC/Subgroup, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We are not recommending changes to the ICANN bylaws to reflect these best practices, although we believe that future Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT) should examine implementation of these best practices among AC/SO/Subgroups. 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.
Here is our current doc, same one we distributed 3-March for the plenary on 10-March From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, March 3, 2017 at 2:23 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, "ws2-so_ac@icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>" <ws2-so_ac@icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - draft report for plenary on 10-Mar-2017 To our CCWG colleagues: Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC Accountability group of Work Stream 2. Our group looks forward to your questions and comments when we meet in Copenhagen. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2 Executive Summary: 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, ACs, and Subgroups. This draft report reflects several months of research and deliberation, starting with exploration of to whom ICANN ACs and SOs are accountable. On that question, our working group reached 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 25 “best practices” that should be considered by each SO/AC/Subgroup, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We are not recommending changes to the ICANN bylaws to reflect these best practices, although we believe that future Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT) should examine implementation of these best practices among AC/SO/Subgroups. 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.
participants (1)
-
Steve DelBianco