[PC-NCSG] Letter to send
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin
Tue Aug 12 20:35:29 EEST 2014
We seem to need a better process for this folks...maybe a template with
due dates/hours, that travels with the document (like a change document
on a report)? if you have not commented by 24 hours before the
deadline, the door shuts... something like that. It is not really fair
to the owner of the document, and to Rafik and Maria to demand they
stand on their heads all day waiting for a final final final to clear
all the gates.
just a thought, I realize we are all busy but I know from recent
experience on the WHOIS conflicts document that this is difficult and
needs to be more clear.
cheers Stephanie
On 14-08-12 12:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 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
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>>
>> I suggest that Rafik send this version. I added Ron's edit, sort
>> of, to
>> Cintra's version.at <http://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 <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140812/19e31475/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list