[PC-NCSG] Letter to send

Thu Aug 14 03:43:30 EEST 2014

Hi Stephanie,

thanks for raising this, I think you are mentioning 2 case but different
aspects:

- for the last statement, it comes with short notice and we needed to act
quickly. there was no real way to predict. the question here is we need to
setup a fast-track process for endorsing for those sudden cases and how to
deal with them in timely manner.

- for the whois comment, we knew we had to  make it and we were looking
for  for a volunteer to draft etc. I am thinking we need more sustainable
way to respond to statement: setting up ad-hoc group like privacy and for
transparency to handle any public comment coming. preparing a draft more
earlier to allow people to comment and that will lessen somehow the stress
to get things done near to deadline. members of WGs will help to notify PC
and membership about coming reports and comments too.  I will try to send
reminders about open comments too and we should discuss about priority
since we cannot cover everything.

we can add more solid process as you suggested but I would like to use
collaborative document to prevent the nightmare of versioning.  The PC
chair can declare the timeline when receiving the draft till the final
decision. it will be of course documented for reference, there are also
some practices to encourage like asking people to suggest specific wording
when making comments, that make things more easy for editing etc

saying that, we still need the PC members to be more reactive and
responsive. I will be glad to hear their feedback and point of view in this
matter and what they think can be done

time for brainstorming and finding solutions :)

Rafik

ps as a former liaison for CSISAC, do you think basecamp was useful, what
practices were helpful?

2014-08-13 2:35 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

>  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>:
>
>> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://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/20140814/3f466531/attachment.html>