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

[Tatiana Tropina]

Full support from me.
Cheers,
Tanya

On Fri 12. Apr 2019 at 19:40, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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> <gbunton at tucows.com>
> To: 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
> <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> <goran.marby at icann.org>
> *Cc:* ccnso-council at icann.org; 'Chris Disspain' <chris at disspain.uk>
> <chris at disspain.uk>; 'Nigel Roberts' <nigel.roberts at board.icann.org>
> <nigel.roberts at board.icann.org>; 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 listSO-AC-SG-CLeaders at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders
>
> --
> ____________________________
> Graeme Bunton
> Director, Analytics & Policy
> Tucows Inc.
> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190412/65fa3c1c/attachment.htm>