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

Tue Apr 16 02:15:45 EEST 2019

Hi,

I think the urgent thing to do is to prepare responses to the questions.
the process for setting the standing panel is taking too much time and you
can notice that some parts in ICANN are interested to push in some
direction for the implementation.
I put Robin and Farzaneh in cc as they followed closely the work on IRP and
what the Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) did.

Best

Rafik

Le mar. 16 avr. 2019 à 05:28, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a écrit :

> why can't he say he is sorry?  I guess this is  input for our meeting
>
> SP
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ICANN Community Leaders] [Ext] RE: Accountability and
> community input on IRP standing panel
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 20:14:59 +0000
> From: Goran Marby <goran.marby at icann.org> <goran.marby at icann.org>
> To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar> <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>,
> Katrina Sataki <katrina at nic.lv> <katrina at nic.lv>, David Olive
> <david.olive at icann.org> <david.olive at icann.org>, Samantha Eisner
> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
> CC: ccnso-council at icann.org <ccnso-council at icann.org>
> <ccnso-council at icann.org>, 'Chris Disspain' <chris at disspain.uk>
> <chris at disspain.uk>, so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org
> <so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org> <so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org>, 'Nigel
> Roberts' <nigel.roberts at board.icann.org> <nigel.roberts at board.icann.org>
>
> Hi friends,
>
>
>
> I wish to thank you for the e-mails, noting the importance to the
> community of the selection of a Standing Panel for Independent Review
> Processes (IRPs), and suggesting that ICANN Org relaunch the call for
> community input via the public comment process. I would like to take this
> opportunity to assure everyone that our publication of a blog post on this
> topic on 9 March was intended to supplement, and not displace, the existing
> processes through which we seek the community’s feedback. This is why the
> same request was circulated after the conclusion of the ICANN64 Kobe
> meeting in the Community Leadership Digest.
>
>
>
> On this specific topic, what we have tried to do is provide more specific
> and targeted ways for the community to provide feedback, since the
> establishment of an IRP Standing Panel has been a long-standing topic of
> community discussion. You will recall that a webinar was held in January
> 2018, followed by a public session at ICANN61 in March 2018. The questions
> that we have developed result from these discussions to date and builds on
> work done by the community-based IRP Implementation Oversight Team. We had
> hoped that this continuous process will allow for multiple opportunities
> for the community to provide its views, as we work toward completing the
> important task of seating the Standing Panel.
>
>
>
> I take the point that publishing the blog post on 9 March without
> providing more specific information about how else we intend to collect
> community feedback may have sent the wrong signal. In addition, I
> understand that the suggested 15 April deadline may not be feasible at this
> stage. I therefore invite you and your community groups to continue to
> provide your feedback via email to the publicly-archived mailing list that
> was set up some time ago for the community to continue its discussions in a
> transparent and accessible way:
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irp-standing-panel/. If possible, I ask
> that you provide your input by *15 May 2019*.
>
>
>
> In relation to the need to provide greater clarity while ensuring
> transparency in our operations, you may be interested to know that, prior
> to the ICANN64 Kobe meeting, I had already requested that David Olive and
> his team prepare a comprehensive set of guidelines regarding the
> appropriate use of public comment proceedings and other community
> consultations. I expect to hold a discussion about this with my Executive
> Team around the time of ICANN65 in Marrakech.
>
>
>
> In closing, I thank you all for your helpful and constructive feedback. I
> look forward to sharing very shortly with you further information about the
> remaining work to be done on the IRP Standing Panel, as well as our plans
> to clarify the use of public comment and consultation opportunities.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Göran
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *"Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>
> <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>
> *Date: *Monday, April 15, 2019 at 10:27 AM
> *To: *Katrina Sataki <katrina at nic.lv> <katrina at nic.lv>, Goran Marby
> <goran.marby at icann.org> <goran.marby at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"ccnso-council at icann.org" <ccnso-council at icann.org>
> <ccnso-council at icann.org> <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" <so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org>
> <so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org> <so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and
> community input on IRP standing panel
>
>
>
> As the deadline for responses is today 15 April 2019, do we have any
> update on whether the deadline will be extended as requested by Katrina.
>
>
>
> *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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190416/24f5a463/attachment.htm>