[PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability
Maria Farrell
maria.farrell
Wed Jun 25 16:19:46 EEST 2014
Hi everyone,
Thanks everyone. We are nearing consensus on this.
If I don't hear any dissent by 1500, I will declare consensus and ask Rafik
to inform the other chairs that the NCSG supports this statement.
NPOC people, any support/concern?
Tks, Maria
On 25 June 2014 12:09, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c3e26ad8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list