[PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak
Wed Jun 25 14:09:41 EEST 2014
Hi,
Other groups are expressing their support to the statemwnt, I think that
we should reach decision by today,
Rafik
On Jun 25, 2014 11:46 AM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I also support this statement, although I am not entirely sure what is
> meant by "in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community".
>
> Thanks Robin.
>
> Amr
>
> Sent from mobile
>
> On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
> Here is the most recent version, with one edit to use ?IANA stewardship
> transition? instead of ?IANA transition? which is more correct.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support
> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides
> meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or
> inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community.
> This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect
> an unprecedented level of consensus across the entire ICANN community, it
> is a necessary and integral element of the IANA stewardship transition.
> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or
> to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments
> should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of
> law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the
> Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own
> decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the
> ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under
> ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff
> decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective
> guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community.
> As part of the IANA stewardship transition, the multi-stakeholder
> community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful
> accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific
> accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing
> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board
> and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven,
> multi-stakeholder initiative.
>
> On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:55 AM, David Cake wrote:
>
> I support this statement.
> David
>
> On 24 Jun 2014, at 5:41 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> So if there is no objections by tomorrow, Maria can declare consensus and
> then I will inform other C/SGs chairs.
>
> Rafik
>
> The text I got from Kristina
>
> The [entire GNSO] join together today calling for the Board to support
> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides
> meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or
> inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community.
> This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect
> an unprecedented level of consensus across the [entire] ICANN community, it
> is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition.
>
> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or
> to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments
> should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of
> law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the
> Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own
> decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the
> ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under
> ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff
> decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective
> guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community.
>
> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the
> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability
> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We
> are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for
> creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill
> their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder
> initiative.
> On Jun 24, 2014 5:37 PM, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Will the other councilors please weigh in on this stmt? Thanks.
>>
>> > On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > still ok with me for NCSG to sign.
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> >> On 24-Jun-14 17:26, Maria Farrell wrote:
>> >> Thanks, Robin. I support this statement. (Having read both, I think the
>> >> second is clearer and reads better.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 24 June 2014 17:06, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>> >> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Here is the latest draft of the community stmt.
>> >>
>> >> The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support
>> >> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that
>> >> provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by
>> >> ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact
>> >> with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration
>> >> - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus
>> >> across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral
>> >> element of the IANA transition.
>> >>
>> >> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to
>> >> itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean
>> >> that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy
>> >> subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be
>> >> open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing
>> >> and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent
>> >> accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and
>> >> various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing
>> >> documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions,
>> >> and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance
>> >> for the board, the staff, and the entire community.
>> >>
>> >> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has
>> >> the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful
>> >> accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific
>> >> accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and
>> >> developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask
>> >> the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support
>> >> this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> >>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> ok with me.
>> >>>
>> >>> avri
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote:
>> >>>> Folks,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's)
>> >> to the
>> >>>> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we
>> >>>> should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful
>> >>>> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote
>> >> Hell Yes.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> Robin
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of
>> >>>> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should
>> >>>> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA
>> >>>> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or
>> >>>> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the
>> >>>> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future
>> >>>> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET
>> >>>> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions
>> >>>> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures
>> >> for the
>> >>>> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is
>> >> only
>> >>>> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the
>> >> world,? nor
>> >>>> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over
>> >>>> community policy.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board
>> >> cannot be
>> >>>> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We
>> >> need an
>> >>>> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and
>> >> created
>> >>>> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various
>> >>>> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and
>> >>>> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In
>> >> addition, we
>> >>>> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed
>> >> financial
>> >>>> audits from a respected firm.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA
>> >> transition plan
>> >>>> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the
>> >>>> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability
>> >>>> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability
>> >> issues.
>> >>>> We the community are committed to coming together and developing
>> >>>> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN
>> >>>> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this
>> >> community
>> >>>> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> 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 <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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 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/20140625/4565913e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list