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

Sat Apr 13 09:59:16 EEST 2019

Definitely but was the initial fault deliberate or from lack of awareness?
best

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 8:31 PM Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>

-- 
Dorothy Gordon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190413/71ec1c41/attachment.htm>