[PC-NCSG] Letter to send

[Robin Gross]

So we are waiting another five hours (end of business day in US)?  I  thought this was going to be sent a couple times already.

Robin

  
On Aug 12, 2014, at 12:08 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> if we don't hear in the next 5 hours any objections (And we didn't see any before), we can assume the statement reached consensus and can be sent. I will wait and proceed after that deadline.
> thanks for sharing the final and clean version.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2014-08-12 12:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> I suggest that Rafik send this version.  I added Ron's edit, sort of, to
> Cintra's version.at this point i think that a note saying we need more
> time to comment seems to have been overcome by events.  but i don't
> really care, if singing it makes us seem more together with the other
> SGs, so be it.
> 
> And sure I support endorsing the RySG stmt.
> But why since we have our own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> -----
> 
> 
> NCSG Statement on ICANN Staff?s Accountability Plan,  11 Aug 2014
> 
> 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 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. Over a month ago, staff assured it was working on this
> during GNSO Council and SO/AC leadership calls since the London meeting;
> normally, staff can produce a synthesis of a comment period within 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 to effectively evaluate
> the proposal.
> 
> 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, 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 (CCG), 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.
> 
> We reiterate that 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.
> 
> An advisor's role must be clarified as an informational role, as only
> representatives of stakeholder interests in a bottom-up process hold
> decision making roles.  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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140812/0434b647/attachment.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/20140812/0434b647/attachment.sig>