<div>I fully agree; hearing no objections, I will add a brief comment of support on the Council list.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,<br></div><div><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user"><div>Ayden <br></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div> On Friday, April 12, 2019 8:39 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><p><span style="font-size:undefinedpx"><span style="font-family:Lucida Grande">I think we should jump in and support this as well, any dissent?</span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:undefinedpx"><span style="font-family:Lucida Grande">Steph</span></span><br></p><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>-------- Forwarded Message --------<br></div><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tbody><tr><th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Subject:<br></th><td>Re: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel<br></td></tr><tr><th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Date:<br></th><td>Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:40:12 -0400<br></td></tr><tr><th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">From:<br></th><td>Graeme Bunton <a href="mailto:gbunton@tucows.com"> <gbunton@tucows.com></a><br></td></tr><tr><th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To:<br></th><td><a href="mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org">so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org</a><br></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br></div><div><br></div><p>These are good points Katrina, thank you.<br></p><p>The RrSG shares these process concerns too, and expressed them directly to GDD staff already.<br></p><p>Graeme<br></p><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2019-04-12 11:12 a.m., Austin, Donna via SO-AC-SG-CLeaders wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)">Dear Katrina</span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"> </span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)">Thank you for raising this important issue. The RySG has similar concerns about important request for input being buried in blog posts as opposed to the familiar public comment process. We agree that the timing
of this particular blog and request was unfortunate given it was, as you pointed out, posted right before ICANN64 when most people were travelling.</span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"> </span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)">The RySG supports your request for an extension and also your request that only one process for seeking community feedback, i.e. ICANN public comments procedure, is used in the future.</span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"> </span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)">Donna</span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"> </span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)">Donna Austin</span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)">Chair, RySG</span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"> </span><br></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p></p><div><b>From:</b> SO-AC-SG-CLeaders [<a href="mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders-bounces@icann.org">mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Katrina Sataki<br></div><div> <b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 12, 2019 12:55 AM<br></div><div> <b>To:</b> 'Goran Marby' <a href="mailto:goran.marby@icann.org"> <goran.marby@icann.org></a><br></div><div> <b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org"> ccnso-council@icann.org</a>; 'Chris Disspain' <a href="mailto:chris@disspain.uk"> <chris@disspain.uk></a>; 'Nigel Roberts' <a href="mailto:nigel.roberts@board.icann.org"> <nigel.roberts@board.icann.org></a>; <a href="mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org"> so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org</a><br></div><div> <b>Subject:</b> [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel<br></div><p></p></div></div><p> <br></p><p><span lang="LV">Dear Göran:</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV"> </span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">In your blog post of 9 March 2019, you invited community inputs on the process for the selection of a standing panel to hear Independent Review Process (IRP) complaints. You included a series of questions, with a deadline
for responses by 15 April 2019:</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV"> </span><br></p><p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="LV"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="font-size:7pt"> </span></span></span></span><span lang="LV">Qualifications for Standing Panelists: Are there specific qualifications that should be included? If so, what are they? Anything disqualifying? Should the SOs and ACs recommend qualifications? And if so, how?</span><br></p><p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="LV"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="font-size:7pt"> </span></span></span></span><span lang="LV">Identifying a Slate of Well-Qualified Panelists: We’ve heard concerns from some members of the ICANN community as to whether the broader community has the appropriate experience and skill for this selection
work, and have suggested the possibility that ICANN instead contract with experts to perform this vetting process. Should the community rely on expertise to help vet and recommend a final slate for the standing panel?</span><br></p><p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="LV"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="font-size:7pt"> </span></span></span></span><span lang="LV">Board Approval of Panel Slate – Further Questions: After there is a slate of well-qualified applicants, the Board must confirm the panel. If the Board has questions that might impact its confirmation, to whom
should those questions be addressed? If experts are used to develop the slate, should the experts, the SOs and ACs, or some combination thereof be part of that conversation?</span><br></p><p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="LV"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="font-size:7pt"> </span></span></span></span><span lang="LV">Future Selections: Should the process being designed today be reviewed for effectiveness after the first slating is completed, prior to making it standard operating procedure for future selection rounds?</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV"> </span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">The IRP, as you correctly stated, is an accountability mechanism arising from the ICANN Bylaws. ICANN Board and staff decisions may be reviewed for breaches of ICANN’s own policies, core values or because decisions have
been made on the basis of incorrect information.</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV"> </span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">Matters of high importance that fall within scope include disputes involving the rights of the Empowered Community, enforcement of ICANN’s contractual rights with respect to the IANA Naming Function Contract, and claims
regarding PTI service complaints by direct customers of the IANA naming functions (that are not resolved through mediation). The appointment of appropriately qualified and independent panellists who will be making these review decision is therefore a high
concern to us.</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV"> </span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">Taking into account that:</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">1) the blog post was published right before ICANN64, when most volunteers are travelling or busy preparing for the meeting,</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">2) no corresponding public comments request has been published on the ICANN website,</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">3) no information about the request was published in ICANN Community Leadership Digest (the questions were first mentioned only on 11 April),</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">and to ensure that:</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">1) all community members are aware of the opportunity to provide input,</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">2) everyone has sufficient time to discuss the issue and submit their considerations,</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">3) the process is transparent and all comments are published in due time,</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">we would like to encourage you to re-launch the call for community inputs in accordance with the established procedures.</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV"> </span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">Furthermore, we request that only one process for seeking community feedback, i.e. ICANN public comments procedure, is used in the future. While a blog post may remain to be a good tool for reminders, and senior staff commentary
may encourage engagement and participation, they are no substitute for due process.</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV"> </span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">Yours sincerely,</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV"> </span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">Katrina Sataki</span><br></p><p><span lang="LV">On behalf of the ccNSO Council</span><br></p></div><div><br></div><pre wrap>_______________________________________________
SO-AC-SG-CLeaders mailing list
<a href="mailto:SO-AC-SG-CLeaders@icann.org">SO-AC-SG-CLeaders@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders</a>
<br></pre></blockquote><pre cols="72">--
____________________________
Graeme Bunton
Director, Analytics & Policy
Tucows Inc.
PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634<br></pre></div></blockquote><div><br></div>