[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel

[Stephanie Perrin]

I think we should jump in and support this as well, any dissent?

Steph


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        Re: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel
Date:   Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:40:12 -0400
From:   Graeme Bunton <gbunton at tucows.com><mailto:gbunton at tucows.com>
To:     so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org<mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org>



These are good points Katrina, thank you.

The RrSG shares these process concerns too, and expressed them directly to GDD staff already.

Graeme

On 2019-04-12 11:12 a.m., Austin, Donna via SO-AC-SG-CLeaders wrote:
Dear Katrina

Thank you for raising this important issue. The RySG has similar concerns about important request for input being buried in blog posts as opposed to the familiar public comment process. We agree that the timing of this particular blog and request was unfortunate given it was, as you pointed out, posted right before ICANN64 when most people were travelling.

The RySG supports your request for an extension and also your request that only one process for seeking community feedback, i.e. ICANN public comments procedure, is used in the future.

Donna

Donna Austin
Chair, RySG

From: SO-AC-SG-CLeaders [mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 12:55 AM
To: 'Goran Marby' <goran.marby at icann.org><mailto:goran.marby at icann.org>
Cc: ccnso-council at icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council at icann.org>; 'Chris Disspain' <chris at disspain.uk><mailto:chris at disspain.uk>; 'Nigel Roberts' <nigel.roberts at board.icann.org><mailto:nigel.roberts at board.icann.org>; so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org<mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org>
Subject: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel

Dear Göran:

In your blog post of 9 March 2019, you invited community inputs on the process for the selection of a standing panel to hear Independent Review Process (IRP) complaints. You included a series of questions, with a deadline for responses by 15 April 2019:


-          Qualifications for Standing Panelists: Are there specific qualifications that should be included? If so, what are they? Anything disqualifying? Should the SOs and ACs recommend qualifications? And if so, how?

-          Identifying a Slate of Well-Qualified Panelists: We’ve heard concerns from some members of the ICANN community as to whether the broader community has the appropriate experience and skill for this selection work, and have suggested the possibility that ICANN instead contract with experts to perform this vetting process. Should the community rely on expertise to help vet and recommend a final slate for the standing panel?

-          Board Approval of Panel Slate – Further Questions: After there is a slate of well-qualified applicants, the Board must confirm the panel. If the Board has questions that might impact its confirmation, to whom should those questions be addressed? If experts are used to develop the slate, should the experts, the SOs and ACs, or some combination thereof be part of that conversation?

-          Future Selections: Should the process being designed today be reviewed for effectiveness after the first slating is completed, prior to making it standard operating procedure for future selection rounds?

The IRP, as you correctly stated, is an accountability mechanism arising from the ICANN Bylaws. ICANN Board and staff decisions may be reviewed for breaches of ICANN’s own policies, core values or because decisions have been made on the basis of incorrect information.

Matters of high importance that fall within scope include disputes involving the rights of the Empowered Community, enforcement of ICANN’s contractual rights with respect to the IANA Naming Function Contract, and claims regarding PTI service complaints by direct customers of the IANA naming functions (that are not resolved through mediation). The appointment of appropriately qualified and independent panellists who will be making these review decision is therefore a high concern to us.

Taking into account that:
1)    the blog post was published right before ICANN64, when most volunteers are travelling or busy preparing for the meeting,
2)    no corresponding public comments request has been published on the ICANN website,
3)    no information about the request was published in ICANN Community Leadership Digest (the questions were first mentioned only on 11 April),
and to ensure that:
1)    all community members are aware of the opportunity to provide input,
2)    everyone has sufficient time to discuss the issue and submit their considerations,
3)    the process is transparent and all comments are published in due time,
we would like to encourage you to re-launch the call for community inputs in accordance with the established procedures.

Furthermore, we request that only one process for seeking community feedback, i.e. ICANN public comments procedure, is used in the future. While a blog post may remain to be a good tool for reminders, and senior staff commentary may encourage engagement and participation, they are no substitute for due process.

Yours sincerely,

Katrina Sataki
On behalf of the ccNSO Council



_______________________________________________
SO-AC-SG-CLeaders mailing list
SO-AC-SG-CLeaders at icann.org<mailto:SO-AC-SG-CLeaders at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders


--
____________________________
Graeme Bunton
Director, Analytics & Policy
Tucows Inc.
PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190412/40dabb72/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Attached Message Part
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190412/40dabb72/attachment.ksh>