[PC-NCSG] Letter to send

[Rafik Dammak]

it is posted here
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48350198  /
https://community.icann.org/x/9sPhAg

Rafik

2014-08-13 5:59 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>:

> 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/20140813/4f9f02ff/attachment.html>