[PC-NCSG] draft NCSG accountability statement

Tue Aug 12 03:59:19 EEST 2014

Hi Maria & Rudi,

Can we submit the NCSG stmt now?

Thanks,
Robin

On Aug 11, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d38d927c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/d38d927c/attachment-0001.sig>