<html><body>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">Thanks for this Bill – it is very helpful.<br />
<br />
- Now we have been given a picture of what I guess the staff believes the
community wants to do; it is attached.<br />
<br />
Is there any reason to believe the staff took the views of the community
into consideration before making this proposal? Perhaps I missed something,
but I don’t recall any member of the community asking for a framework
where the real decision making power is vested in a Group where control
rests with Board and staff members and appointees. Certainly nothing like
this was proposed in any of the 52 submissions received by ICANN during the
Enhancing Public Accountability comment period.<br />
<br />
Rather, I’d suggest the proposed accountability review structure is
what the staff knows the staff and board want to do. It’s nice to know
that Mr. Chehade once believed true power belonged in the community. Things
seemed to have changed. On Monday he’s telling us “any attempt
to do anything is top-down”. The proposed structure of the
“Enhancing Accountability” project is more in keeping with Mr.
Chehade’s more recent view that his previous one.<br />
<br />
I’m concerned about the role of experts in the schematic. I actually
prefer the role experts had in the “old” ICANN. Institutions,
such as Berkman, would be retained to produce a report based upon expertise
in a particular area. Recommendations would come from a source external to
ICANN’s internal processes and would be accepted or rejected
accordingly. In the “new” ICANN experts are part of an internal
process with the imprimatur of bottom up multi-stakeholderism, but being
nothing of the sort.<br />
<br />
Under the current proposal, the specific experts selected by the B.G.C. will
greatly define the scope of this project. Dr. Scholte is a fine man and his
team at Warwick do fine work as political scientists. The thing is ICANN is
a corporation. As someone who is increasingly of the view that any
true accountability mechanism needs to hard wire the Board to the community
through a change in corporate structure, I’d prefer legal experts and
experts in corporate, as opposed to global, governance involved. These are
different fields.<br />
<br />
Allowing the BGC to select the experts not only allows the Board to
determine the ideological makeup of the Group, it also strongly limits or
expands the scope of the inquiry itself. The BGC was the principle
impediment to our TM50 accountability efforts last year; I don’t have
a lot of faith that their “experts” will be those likely to
propose real change to the façade of accountability we now have.
Certainly not anything that would put their Board positions at risk.<br />
<br />
To Bill’s three points of inquiry I’d add two others:<br />
<br />
- What criteria will be used by the BGC in selecting the
“experts?” and<br />
- What exactly is the scope of the project? Specifically, does it extend to
ICANN’s corporate structure?<br />
<br />
<br />
Ed<br />
</div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13px;
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">
<blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">-----Original
Message-----<br />
From: William Drake <wjdrake@GMAIL.COM><br />
To: NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br />
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 09:44:48 +0200<br />
Subject: Re: [council] FYI - Recording and Transcript of 4 August 2014 ICANN
Accountability Leadership Discussion<br />
<br />
Hi
<div> </div>
<div>Also a good read is the transcript of the SOAC chairs call we did in
July <a
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/45744715/SO-AC-SG%20Transcript%20of%20July%202014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1406040072000&api=v2">
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/45744715/SO-AC-SG%20Transcript%20of%20July%202014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1406040072000&api=v2</a>
. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I asked Fadi for a reaction to the joint statement of the entire GNSO
that was read out in the London public forum arguing that "We need an
independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and
various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN’s governing
documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and
through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the
board, the staff, and the entire community.” You may recall that
when this was read out Fadi was reading through a stack of docs and
didn’t appear to look up, so I sort of innocently asked him what he
thought. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>————</div>
<div> </div>
<div><i>Bill: Okay. So I was just wondering, Fadi. I haven’t had a
chance to talk to you since London, and I was wondering if you have a
specific reaction to the statement that was made on behalf of all
the different parts of the GNSO in the Public Forum. Steve
provided some feedback, on one of the List Serve discussions, but
I haven’t heard you engage on the specific ideas that people
were putting forward, and whether -- how you saw those fitting into the
process, and maybe that’s just because it's summer and I
missed something. So, if you could maybe just clue me in on what
your thinking is about the suggestions that were made, that would be
really interesting to me.<br />
<br />
Fadi: Thank you, Bill. Let me just make sure. You mean the suggestion that I
just discussed in the last 10 minutes about forming a Cross Community
Working Group on accountability?<br />
<br />
Bill: No. No. The statement that was made by the GNSO leaders was about more
than forming the Cross Community Working Group, which was about
establishing mechanisms for accountability, and so on.<br />
<br />
Fadi: Well, I didn't get any more detailed on what that is, frankly,
since the comments at the Public Forum. Could you either now, or could
we get--<br />
<br />
Bill: I don't have the text right in front of me. Does anybody else have
that in front of them? I'm not on the computer right now.<br />
<br />
Theresa: Bill this is -- I think Steve had responded, and provided a
response back.<br />
<br />
Bill: I know that Steve did, but I was saying, I hadn't heard Fadi
address the suggestions that were made.<br />
<br />
Fadi: No. I have to look at these more closely, Bill, to be frank; before I
can say something. So I will do that, and I will seek to publish
something, or send you something at least -- unless others
are interested -- as to my views on that, that I need to look into
more closely.<br />
Theresa, did you want to say something on that? Or, you’d rather you
and I chat about this, because I haven’t focused on this
since.<br />
<br />
Theresa: No. Neither had I, and I think that the -- there had been input
into the topic around accountability and it's also something
that’s relevant to, you know, the overall accountability work that we
are doing, but it's a specific kind of proposal. There have
been similar specific kinds of proposals and topics being raised
and also in the comments that were received, through the public
comment process. In looking at all of those kinds of specific inputs
and ideas, and suggestions; this is something that we haven’t had
a chance to look through entirely either.<br />
<br />
Fadi: And Bill, just quickly. I mean, I don't want to be evasive,
because I didn't look at it closely, that’s all it is, but I
will tell you that if these are proposals on specific ways we can improve
our accountability, then my answer, I can tell you right now will be,
let's get the process going, and feed these into the process.
I will not -- it's not my role to -- say I am for that
accountability mechanism, or I'm not for that one. And my role
(inaudible)--<br />
<br />
Bill: The particular point, I guess, that was emphasized as the notion of an
external or independent accountability structure.<br />
<br />
Fadi: I think what we need to do is to create a process. Create a team of
people that can then start consuming all these ideas. It has to be a
bottom-up, completely across community groups; that can comment on
this. It is not my job to comment on this, as your President. My job is
to enable the process, in a way that you are satisfied and frankly to
deal with, in fact, the concerns like Elisa and others have brought up,
to make sure that this is truly bottom-up and a community process.
That’s my focus.<br />
<br />
Now, do I have an opinion? Yes. But it doesn't matter to be honest, what
matters is what the community wants to do to make ICANN the shining
light on the hill. That’s what's important. And I assure you
of that. So I will look at them nonetheless, and absorb them, and
understand them, because it's -- I'm also a member of the
community, but I can assure you also that I will not be commenting on
any specific proposals because it's not my role to do that, it's the
community's role.</i></div>
<div> </div>
<div>-----------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So that was that…he’d not looked at the GNSO’s input
closely, but it doesn’t matter what his opinion is, what matters is
what the community wants to do.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now we have been given a picture of what I guess the staff believes the
community wants to do; it is attached. As Robin notes, two tiers: a
Community Assembly tasked with identifying issues, to which each GNSO SG can
appoint four reps; and a Community Coordination Group, that will categorize
and prioritize issues identified by the assembly and then build solutions
and issue final reports and recs. This group would be comprised of
just one participant each from the GNSO and other SOs, a liaison with the
IANA CoCo, a staff member, a AOC/ATRT expert, a board liaison, and up to
seven advisors selected by the board. Those advisors would provide
advice and research etc. They have in mind folks like Jan Aart Scholte,
the professor who gave a talk in London. Observers would be
welcome.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is an interesting architecture.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For starters, I asked three simple questions about it:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>*The perceived advantages of this new structure vs. a CCWG</div>
<div> </div>
<div>*The viability of having just one rep for the GNSO’s many diverse
groupings</div>
<div> </div>
<div>*The rationale for 7 board-appointed advisors</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There was discussion on the last call of some of these points, but no
really clear answers or consensus that I could detect. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>So now that this model is formally on the table for community
consideration, it would make sense to provide some organized input.
The registries are working on something that raises the above
questions and more, NCSG hopefully can do the same.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div>On Aug 6, 2014, at 8:19 PM, Robin Gross <<a
href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Yes, indeed. I listened to the call and was
disappointed by staff's proposal to control the accountability process
and defensiveness when called on it. We have been asking staff
for information on what it would be proposing for a couple months (at GNSO
mtg & last "leaders" call) and we were just told not to worry
about it, that staff was busy compiling the input and would dialogue with us
soon. Finally, without seeing the "synthesis" of the
community input, we get this half-baked proposal from Fadi that calls for a
process of two-tier accountability groups in which board-staff controls the
group that "prioritizes" issues and "solutions".
The 7 "experts" board selects for this group aren't
really part of a "community" coordination group. Experts are
great, but they should be selected by and report to the community (not
board-staff) and not pretend like they represent stakeholders in the
community. Also, staff's proposal doesn't quite say who will
be making final decisions regarding the output of the groups proposed.
Also, staff should be in this group in an informational /
support / liaison sort of role, not as an equal participant with the
community members.<br />
<br />
Rather than try to design the whole accountability process internally to
create a process that board-staff could control the output of, the community
should have been engaged in the formulation of this proposal, as we've
been asking every time we get to speak to them. <br />
<br />
It seems like the input staff will now take is minor, around the edges and
relating to the community assembly / working group -- and NOT the more
important decisional body it is proposing. Hopefully we can get some
significant changes and clarifications to this staff proposal for
accountability at ICANN before Fadi declares that the community is aligned
in support of his plan.<br />
<br />
Rafik, can you relay my concerns back to staff? (or if there is a mechanism
for me to do that, I'd be glad to do it myself). But this
accountability plan is half-baked and needs more input from the community
before it should go forward. <br />
<br />
When will staff learn that trust must be earned and these sorts of constant
shenanigans only hinder confidence and trust in ICANN's legitimacy to
govern?<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
Robin<br />
<br />
<br />
On Aug 6, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Avri Doria wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite">Interesting reading<br />
<br />
avri<br />
<br />
<br />
-------- Original Message --------<br />
Subject: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>
[council] FW: FYI - Recording and Transcript of 4 August 2014<br />
ICANN Accountability Leadership Discussion<br />
Date: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Wed, 6
Aug 2014 07:34:10 +0100<br />
From: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Jonathan
Robinson <<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">
jrobinson@afilias.info</a>><br />
Reply-To: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>
<<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>
><br />
Organization: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>
Afilias<br />
To: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
All,<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
FYI.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Audio not attached (its 16MB). All available at the link below.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Jonathan<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*From:*Robert Hoggarth [<a href="mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org">
mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org</a>]<br />
*Sent:* 05 August 2014 18:30<br />
*To:* Theresa Swinehart; David Olive; Byron Holland;<br />
<a href="mailto:heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca">heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca</a>;
Jonathan Robinson; Louie Lee; Olivier MJ<br />
Crepin-Leblond; Patrik Fältström; Jun Murai; Lars-Johan Liman;
Elisa<br />
Cooper; tony holmes; Kristina Rosette; Rafik Dammak; William Drake; Rudi<br
/>
Vansnick; Michele Neylon :: Blacknight; Drazek, Keith<br />
*Cc:* Susie Johnson; Tina Shelebian; Global Leadership; Duncan Burns;<br />
Samantha Eisner; Bart Boswinkel; Marika Konings; Heidi Ullrich; Steve
Sheng<br />
*Subject:* FYI - Recording and Transcript of 4 August 2014 ICANN<br />
Accountability Leadership Discussion<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi All,<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Attached please find the recording of yesterday's discussion along
with<br />
the call transcript and the AC Room chat transcript. All three<br />
documents are now posted on the CEO-SO/AC/SG Leadership Connect page<br />
at <a
href="https://community.icann.org/display/soaceinputfdback/Event+Calendar">
https://community.icann.org/display/soaceinputfdback/Event+Calendar</a> .<br
/>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Rob<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<Transcript - Special ICANN Acctblty
Session_20140804_SOACSG_Fadi.pdf><August 4 2014 Chat Special
Session.pdf></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body></html>