[PC-NCSG] draft NCSG accountability statement

[Stephanie Perrin]

Yes, go go go
On 2014-08-11, 16:01, Robin Gross wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140811/b76554d3/attachment.html>