[PC-NCSG] draft NCSG accountability statement

[Robin Gross]

Thanks, all!  Can we get this out today?  It would be great if we could have some influence on the next draft staff publishes.

Thanks,
Robin

On Aug 11, 2014, at 10:29 AM, David Cake wrote:

> I agree. It looks good to me. Happy to endorse it.
> 
> On 11 Aug 2014, at 7:19 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> I think the statement looks great, nice addition of the transparency item, and as a PC member I support it.
> cheers Stephanie
> On 2014-08-11, 12:54, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I request that we initiate an approval process for Rafik to be able to
> send this in as a NCSG letter.
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> On 11-Aug-14 12:47, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> DRAFT
> Proposed NCSG Statement on ICANN Staff?s Accountability Plan  v.03
> 
> The NCSG appreciates this opportunity to provide feedback regarding the
> ICANN Staff?s non-stakeholder led proposal for further work on
> ?Enhancing Accountability? at ICANN.
> 
> A number of public comments and discussions in London focused on the
> inherent conflict of interest behind staff developing its own
> accountability and transparency mechanisms, so it was surprising to see
> that input had not been taken into account by staff in the development
> of this proposal. NCSG notes its disappointment with the staff having
> skipped the step of providing a synthesis of the community feedback
> received from the ICANN public comments forum and the London
> accountability discussions. Staff had stated it was working on this
> during GNSO Council and SO/AC leadership calls since the London meeting,
> and that was over a month ago; normally, staff can produce a synthesis
> of a comment period with a week, so we are at a loss to explain this
> delay.  NCSG reiterates its request to see the 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. It is
> difficult to find those elements in the written comments.  At a time
> when the world is indeed watching ICANN to discern if it can be trusted
> without NTIA oversight of its global governance functions, and is
> particularly interested in the formulation of a proposal for resolving
> ICANN?s accountability crisis, to skip the step of providing the
> rationale for staff?s proposal, including its basis in the community?s
> stakeholder comments, 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 proposal at the
> 11th hour.  This is an example of top-down policymaking, which runs
> counter to ICANN?s bottom-up methodology and may inspire mistrust on the
> part of the stakeholders.
> 
> 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 as such it replicates 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 mechanisms, 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 voice 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 decision making role that representatives of
> stakeholder interests 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-decision making, support or liaison function.   For the CCG to
> have legitimacy as a participatory form of democracy, the
> decision-making members must consist of stakeholders, not the ICANN
> board and staff.  The make-up, roles and responsibilities 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140811/0c993e83/attachment.sig>