<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Just a general rhetorical point I'd like to make when we speak about
ICANN "staff's proposed" whatever. Y'all feel free to ignore this.<br>
<br>
Seems to me that many things "staff proposed" are very political
indeed and that often times we find ourselves opposing it on both
substance and process. <br>
<br>
The expression "staff proposed ..." carries a process meaning that
is perhaps not stressed to the extent that it could/should: it seems
to me that using the term "staff proposed" is not quite carrying
enough of the <b>democratic liability</b> that it sometimes has,
and that we are missing a communications opportunity. <br>
<br>
I think we should rather say something along the lines of :<br>
<br>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-1a10acbc-b763-3c1d-e936-a4df35af1425"><br>
<div style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.15; margin-top: 0pt;
margin-bottom: 0pt; "><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">The
NCSG appreciates this opportunity to provide feedback
regarding the <font color="#cc0000">non-stakeholders led</font>
<font color="#cc0000">proposal</font> for “Enhancing
Accountability” at ICANN. <br>
</span></div>
</span><br>
Or<br>
<br>
<div style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.15; margin-top: 0pt;
margin-bottom: 0pt; "><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">The
NCSG appreciates this opportunity to provide feedback regarding
the <font color="#cc0000">top down</font> <font
color="#cc0000">proposal</font> for “Enhancing Accountability”
at ICANN. <br>
</span></div>
<br>
or<br>
<br>
<div style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.15; margin-top: 0pt;
margin-bottom: 0pt; "><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">The
NCSG appreciates this opportunity to provide feedback regarding
the <font color="#cc0000">in-house non-stakeholders led
proposal</font> for “Enhancing Accountability” at ICANN. <br>
</span></div>
<br>
.....<br>
<br>
also a possibility would be to vary the syntax, e.g.:<br>
<div style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.15; margin-top: 0pt;
margin-bottom: 0pt; "><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;"><br>
The NCSG appreciates this opportunity to provide feedback
regarding the </span><span
id="docs-internal-guid-1a10acbc-b763-3c1d-e936-a4df35af1425"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">proposed
plan</span></span><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;"><font
color="#cc0000"></font> for “Enhancing Accountability” at
ICANN, a [top down] proposal developed outside the
multistakeholder political model. <br>
</span></div>
<br>
.....<br>
<br>
You see my point I'm sure. To reiterate, it just seems to me that
saying "Icann staff's" plan or proposal is not conferring the
policy-process "discredit" or "liability" that it perhaps
could/should. <br>
<br>
Now I surmise (without knowing for sure) that their are instances
where staff-led proposals are write ups that are derived from
multistakeholder bottom-up policy making process and inputs. These
should perhaps be addressed differently to reflect this.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08/08/2014 4:52 PM, Robin Gross
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:82FB208C-BBEF-4C50-A719-BE07583FB976@ipjustice.org"
type="cite"><span
id="docs-internal-guid-1a10acbc-b763-3c1d-e936-a4df35af1425">
<div style="text-align: left; line-height: 1.15; margin-top:
0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; "><span style="font-size: 15px;
font-family: Arial; background-color: transparent;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration:
none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; ">Should
have sent the draft text along also:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left; line-height: 1.15; margin-top:
0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; "><span style="font-size: 15px;
font-family: Arial; background-color: transparent;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration:
none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; "><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.15; margin-top:
0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center; "><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:bold;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.15; margin-top:
0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center; "><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:bold;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">DRAFT</span></div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.15; margin-top:
0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center; "><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:bold;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">Proposed
NCSG Statement on ICANN Staff’s Accountabillity Plan v.01</span></div>
<br>
<div style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.15; margin-top:
0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; "><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">The
NCSG appreciates this opportunity to provide feedback
regarding the ICANN staff’s proposed plan for “Enhancing
Accountability” at ICANN. </span></div>
<br>
<div style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.15; margin-top:
0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; "><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">NCSG
notes its disappointment, however, with the staff skipping
the step of providing a synthesis of the community feedback
received from the ICANN public comments forum and the London
accountability discussions, as staff had stated it was
working on during GNSO Council and SO/AC leadership calls
since the London meeting. NCSG reiterates its request to
see that synthesis of public input upon which staff relied
in the formulation of its accountability proposal. It is
impossible to know where the components of staff’s proposal
come from and on what basis they are called for without
being privy to staff’s assessment of the public input on the
subject. At a time when the world is indeed watching ICANN
to discern if it can be trusted with no oversight of its
global govern functions, and particularly on the issue of
formulating a proposal for resolving ICANN’s accountability
crisis, to skip the step of providing the intellectual
justification for staff’s proposal seems imprudent at best.
From its inception, the community should have been engaged
in the formulation of the proposal on the table, not
pressured into signing-off on a staff created proposal at
the 11th hour. This is an example of top-down policymaking
which engenders mistrust. A number of public comments and
discussion in London were around the inherent conflict of
interest behind staff developing its own accountability
mechanisms so it was disappointing to see that input hadn’t
been taken into account by staff in the development of this
proposal.</span></div>
<br>
<span style="font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0,
0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration:
none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; ">Regarding
the substance of the staff proposal, the NCSG does not support
it as currently drafted. Of particular concern is the
proposed Community Coordination Group, which would prioritize
issues identified by the community and build solutions for
those issues. As proposed by staff, this group is too heavily
controlled by the ICANN board and staff and so it does not
remove the problem of ICANN’s accountability structures being
circular and lacking independence. Given the overwhelming
number of public comments submitted supporting the need for an
independent accountability mechanism, it is unclear on what
basis ICANN staff proposed a solution in which the ICANN board
and staff would fill a large number of the seats on the CCG.
It is also unclear on what basis staff thinks board-picked
advisors should have an equal vote as representatives of
community members. Outside experts are welcome and can
provide valuable input, but they should be selected by and
report to the community, not the board or staff for
independent accountability to be achieved. And advisors role
must be clarified as an informational role, rather than a
voting role that representatives of stakeholders would hold in
a bottom-up process. It is also necessary that the role of
any ICANN Board or Staff on this CCG serve in a non-voting
support or liaison function. For the CCG to have legitimacy
as a representational form of democracy, its voting members
must consist of representatives of the stakeholders that ICANN
seeks to govern, not the ICANN board and staff. The make-up
and roles of the members of the proposed CCG must be
reformulated in a more bottom-up fashion by the community for
this proposal to be acceptable.</span></span>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px;
white-space: pre-wrap;"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px;
white-space: pre-wrap;"><br>
</span></font>
<div>
<div>On Aug 8, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Robin Gross wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Here is a link for an open Google doc to draft the NCSG
accountability proposal stmt:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Imjv-1teQYTjlYDncRLzj1YF3SXedF5nVJg7UAYOIXs/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Imjv-1teQYTjlYDncRLzj1YF3SXedF5nVJg7UAYOIXs/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
<br>
I've taken a first stab at crafting something to get us
started. Editors and others who wish to contribute,
please hack away!<br>
<br>
Thank you!<br>
Robin<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>