[PC-NCSG] Letter to send

Tue Aug 12 23:59:49 EEST 2014

Thank you, Rafik!  Would you please send a copy of the final draft that was submitted so I can post it online?  Or if you've already posted it online somewhere, just send the link to it then.

Thanks again,
Robin

On Aug 12, 2014, at 1:47 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hi Robin,
> 
> I sent the letter, I waited as much as possible
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 2014-08-13 1:56 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>:
> 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/20140812/4b6cbf4b/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/20140812/4b6cbf4b/attachment-0001.sig>