[PC-NCSG] draft NCSG accountability statement

Tue Aug 12 19:11:26 EEST 2014

Hi,

you mean it did not get sent already by Rafik?  Last I saw, he was going
to submit.

avri

On 12-Aug-14 11:25, Robin Gross wrote:
> May we please submit this NCSG stmt now?   If we lose another day, it
> will be too late for any of it to matter.
> 
> Sigh,
> Robin
> 
> On Aug 11, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> 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 <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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
> 