Hi

I disagree that they did not take up the comments:

- we complained about the absence of the review of the comment period.
They delivered.  We spent half of our letter on that as it was out most
important issue.

- we complained about them picking experts to represent the interests of
the external communities, so they proposed another scheme.  Some may
still not like it, but it is a changed mechanism, a respsonse.
I personally cannot think of how else they might find those experts -
and i think they need them.
The 1net experiment has so far shown that the external stakeholders have
no capacity for picking anything.  In fact even within ICANN NCPH on the
Board selection, we have shown an incredible inability to choose people
to represent us in a timely manner.  What they have done is establish an
external selection committee.  Seems a compromise to me.
And yes, a lot has to do with who gets chosen for that committee.

- finally this is a process to build accountability mechanisms, when we
speak of independent mechanisms, we are speaking of a result we wnat
from this group.

So while many of NCSG may not like the solution they gave to the issues
we presented, they did address them.   As I said when comparing to the
AOC review teams and the expert review teams of the past, they have come
a long way.  And I think this is workable.

avri


On 15-Aug-14 15:17, Robin Gross wrote:
> Yes, I agree with Nicolas and Ed and believe we need to send a
> response letter to voice our concerns with this unacceptable top-down
> process while also recognizing that staff really won't take any
> input, will do it the way it planned all along, in line with this
> so-called "revised" proposal, which really isn't a proposal but an
> edict from on high.  Nor is "revised" in any way that addresses the
> concerns our statement raised.  I seriously hope the entire community
> takes Fadi to task to once again issuing top-down orders instead of
> allowing the bottom up process to try to work.  This is something
> that all SG's share and we need to organize among ourselves with our
> colleagues in the different SG's instead of allowing ICANN to dictate
> its self-serving plan to the community and kill any hope of
> meaningful accountability.
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Aug 15, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
> 
>> On 15/08/2014 10:01 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I have a few bullets that pull me to mostly different
>>> conclusions.
>>> 
>>> - deferring to me in such matters is never the right thing to do.
>>> In social circumstances it is a lovely thing, but on a list,
>>> never.
>>> 
>>> - i tend to think of Staff as stakeholders too, though of a very 
>>> different sort.  When the multistakeholder definition says
>>> 'everyone', forme, it has to mean them too.
>> 
>> I disagree strongly. As individuals or anything else they can chime
>> in in the relevant SG. But just like a public office clerk also is
>> a citizen, she does not vote as public office clerk. We may not be
>> able to prevent her from informally participating in democratic
>> policy-making as clerk, but we should definitely resist giving
>> clerks representational powers.
>> 
>>> Certainly their role as staff constrains their behaviors.  But
>>> sitting at the table to discuss accountability, especially when
>>> one of the big issues is staff whistleblowing and the safety with
>>> which they can do so, it seems to me they should have a seat.
>> 
>> That is a different issue, one in which staff's needs need to be
>> listened to, but the existence of this issue does not transform
>> staff into stakeholders.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> - this is broader than the inside ICANN community.  The
>>> accountability is accountability to the global multuistakeholder
>>> community by ICANN on issues of critical Internet resources. I
>>> see these experts as being asked to give that viewpoint. Now I
>>> fear so-called experts, they can be good or oh so awful.  I think
>>> removing the choice of the experts  from the Board/Staff 
>>> political decision makers and giving it to the group of the
>>> 'wise' - the Public Experts Group (PEG)*, is real and can be made
>>> meaningful.  I think we should save our voice for our reaction to
>>> the choosing of the Public Experts Group.  Any expert picked for
>>> the PEG or coordination group should be ready for the approval or
>>> approbation of the larger Internet governance community - both
>>> inside and outside of ICANN - a place that can seem very cruel at
>>> times.
>>> 
>>> - the coordination group does not make decisions, it builds
>>> "solution requirements for issues with input from the Cross
>>> Community Group"  This is still ICANN where any solution they
>>> propose is subjected to full public comment and Board approval.
>>> It is good to see they made this explicit.  This is more like an
>>> advisory organization, seeming somewhat a hybird between an
>>> advisory committee and a supporting organization - time will
>>> tell.  It is a lot like the AOC in some aspects, except that it
>>> is NOT the Board Chair, CEO and GAC chair deciding who is on the 
>>> entire team.  And it has a feeder mechanism for continuous
>>> community input.  I think they did well on building a basic
>>> organizational structure for this effort.
>> 
>> Thanks for clarifying this. I see the merits of what has been
>> brought forward, though I'm still trying to wrap my head around
>> whether I like it or not. Would it be really difficult to have the
>> SGs select the wise folks? This seems, to me, to be the relevant
>> question here.
>> 
>> 
>> Nicolas
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> - the community group is the place to be.  I agree completely
>>> with
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 3. Please note: “All stakeholders that wish to participate in
>>>> the Cross Community Group may indicate their involvement by
>>>> submitting their names to
>>>> [log in to unmask]” It would be great to get
>>>> as many members as we can on the Group. The sign on process has
>>>> begun.
>>>> 
>>> I have sent my signup request.
>>> 
>>> On the other recommendations, if you really think you can change
>>> things for the better or if saying I told you so is important, by
>>> all means write the strong letter.
>>> 
>>> I plan to focus on steps going forward. And of course I will
>>> comment on any letter people come up with.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> * who incidentally had better pass an ICANN giggle test - being 
>>> announced will be a very painful experience for them if the
>>> community thinks they are crap
>>> 
>>> On 15-Aug-14 09:00, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> While certainly willing to defer to those, like Avri, with
>>>> more experience as to what actually is possible within the
>>>> ICANN universe, I do feel compelled to note that the revised
>>>> accountability plan, to use a highly technical term, stinks. As
>>>> in stinks big time. Despite slight modifications, it is still a
>>>> process dominated by the same staff and Board that to date have
>>>> repeatedly resisted all attempts at true accountability and
>>>> transparency.
>>>> 
>>>> To wit:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Despite community objection, we still have an ICANN staff
>>>> member as a full participating member of the Coordination
>>>> Group. The precedent this sets is untenable.  Once staff begins
>>>> participating in the decision-making process they cease to be
>>>> neutral facilitators of the process. Not only does this turn
>>>> bottom up multi-stakeholderism on its head, it presents
>>>> practical problems in terms of trust: if staff are involved in
>>>> debating and making decisions, how can they be relied upon to
>>>> neutrally manage the process?
>>>> 
>>>> 2. The role of experts is essentially unchanged, despite
>>>> widespread community opposition. They are not merely advisory;
>>>> they are full participants in the process.
>>>> 
>>>> ICANN notes, “Some stakeholders called for stakeholder
>>>> selection of the advisors, and suggested that ICANN involvement
>>>> in this process is not appropriate.  Others called for
>>>> coordination between ICANN and stakeholders in the selection of
>>>> advisors”.  ICANN responds by doing neither.
>>>> 
>>>> Instead it creates a Public Experts Group (PEG), selected by
>>>> staff, which will then select the expert members of the
>>>> Coordination Group. How this is seen as being responsive to
>>>> community concerns baffles me. Staff selects the experts who
>>>> select the experts who participate as full members of the
>>>> Coordination Group. There is no mechanism for ANY community
>>>> involvement whatsoever in the selection of experts. We’re not
>>>> entitled to even make a mere suggestion.
>>>> 
>>>> Staff justifies the inclusion of experts as participants,
>>>> rather than advisors, by saying ICANN is responding to outside
>>>> concern. The world is watching and external advice is needed to
>>>> meet these concerns.
>>>> 
>>>> Yet the Thune/ Rubio letter Mr. Chehade often refers to when
>>>> citing outside pressure specifically calls for “additional
>>>> oversight tools” to be given to the “multistakeholder
>>>> community”. Perhaps if we say “pretty please” the experts
>>>> selected by experts selected by staff in collaboration with
>>>> staff selected by staff and a Board member selected by the
>>>> Board will give the “multistakeholder community” “additional
>>>> oversight tools” to monitor the Board and staff. Perhaps the
>>>> moon is made of blue cheese. Anything is possible, I suppose. 
>>>> Real oversight, as opposed to a facade of oversight, is
>>>> presumably not in the immediate self interest of staff or
>>>> Board.
>>>> 
>>>> An additional concern is the limitation in scope of the 
>>>> qualifications of the Public Experts Group. The PEG members
>>>> are required to have “strong backgrounds in academia,
>>>> governmental relations, global insight, and the AoC”. Two areas
>>>> of concern:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. ICANN is a corporation. It is not a government, it is not
>>>> (yet, at least) an international organization, it is a
>>>> California public benefits corporation. We are trying to create
>>>> accountability and transparency mechanisms for a private
>>>> corporation, yet staff  omits corporate governance as a vital
>>>> area in which expert advice is needed. By controlling the scope
>>>> of competence of the experts, staff is dictating the scope of
>>>> inquiry of the entire project. We need to be conscious of this
>>>> and react accordingly as the process moves on.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. It appears that rather than set criteria and then find the 
>>>> experts for the PEG, ICANN has already selected the experts to
>>>> be included in the group. Four background areas (is there any
>>>> such thing as an expert on the AoC?), four expert slots. If
>>>> this is the situation, and it may very well not be although I
>>>> suspect it is, the process certainly does not comply with any
>>>> sort of best practices for governance that I know of.
>>>> 
>>>> Suggested Action Plan
>>>> 
>>>> 1. While agreeing with Avri that we need to begin sorting how
>>>> we are going to work within the proposed structure, I also
>>>> believe we need to issue a strong statement in opposition to
>>>> the plan as currently proposed. Staff modifications to the
>>>> initial model are simply not sufficient to bless this proposal
>>>> with our approval.
>>>> 
>>>> Although such a statement might not create any change in the
>>>> process going forward, should the outcome be as bad as we may
>>>> fear I’d like to be able to point to our ongoing opposition to
>>>> the rigged structure when criticizing the outcome. Complete
>>>> silence to the modified model at this point might be construed
>>>> as approval. We could then, at a later stage, be accused of
>>>> buying into the structure at the start and only criticizing the
>>>> modified model later when we didn’t like the policy outputs.
>>>> I’d like to avoid that.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Although staff has not tasked our SG with recommending
>>>> expert members of the Coordination Group I’d suggest we do so
>>>> any way. The NCSG is the most diverse community within ICANN;
>>>> our networks are vast. Let’s plug into them and be proactive.
>>>> Once we have a list of a few names of folks we’d like to see
>>>> involved on the Coordination Group we can use it as follows:
>>>> 
>>>> a.  We can send the list to the selected members of the PEG and
>>>> ask that the individuals listed be given full consideration by
>>>> the PEG for inclusion in the Coordination Group;
>>>> 
>>>> b. There is a provision in the modified plan by where “the
>>>> Cross Community Group may provide suggestions on external
>>>> experts they feel would be helpful to the accountability
>>>> effort”. By having already considered the situation we'll be
>>>> prepared to offer names of experts when required.
>>>> 
>>>> In the hope of stimulating further recommendations, I’ll start
>>>> by suggesting that Dr. Deirdre Ahern of Trinity College Dublin
>>>> would be an excellent selection for the Coordination Group. In
>>>> addition to be an acknowledged expert in board governance, one
>>>> of the many areas of expertise identified by ICANN as being
>>>> needed on the Coordination Group, Dr. Ahern also has a
>>>> subspecialty in Internet Law and, in fact, teaches the I-Law
>>>> course at Trinity, Ireland’s most prestigious university. You
>>>> can read more about Dr. Ahern here: 
>>>> https://www.tcd.ie/Law/deirdreahern/index.php. I hope you agree
>>>> with me that she’d be a qualified exceptional choice for the
>>>> Coordination Group. Equally, I hope others have people in mind
>>>> that they would like to suggest for either the Coordination
>>>> Group or for other as yet defined consultative processes.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. Please note: “All stakeholders that wish to participate in
>>>> the Cross Community Group may indicate their involvement by
>>>> submitting their names to [log in to unmask] 
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>.” It would be
>>>> great to get as many members as we can on the Group. The sign
>>>> on process has begun.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Ed
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] To: 
>>>> [log in to unmask] Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 06:41:01
>>>> +0000 Subject: Re: Accountability plan
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all Mho is that the more we are evolving the more we will
>>>> enter in the secret of gods. Really intersting ! Cheers !
>>>> -Olévié-
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask] 
>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak%40GMAIL.COM>> a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks, it is definitely an interesting reading :) and as
>>>>> NCSG we
>>>> have to
>>>>> make some actions and that is coming soon.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2014-08-15 12:24 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:avri%40acm.org>>:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well the final plan for the Accountability process seems to
>>>>>> be out.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-14-en
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think our next step is to start figuring out how we are
>>>>>> going
>>>> to work
>>>>>> with it.  We have done whatever we could to adjust it based
>>>>>> on NCSG principles, but at this point, I think that phase
>>>>>> of the process is pretty much over.  I believe that the
>>>>>> effect of the various GNSO SG letters was positive as I
>>>>>> think the process is better now than the earlier version we
>>>>>> saw.  I think there is stuff I could quibble
>>>> about,
>>>>>> but structurally the plan makes sense to me, and I think it
>>>>>> can
>>>> work as
>>>>>> a way for the community, both inside ICANN and the global
>>>> community, to
>>>>>> do something to improve ICANN accountability.  I think it
>>>>>> could
>>>> achieve
>>>>>> a lot given the dependency of the transition process on
>>>>>> the accountability process.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It looks like that at least for the next year, it is going
>>>>>> to
>>>> involve a
>>>>>> whole bunch of work and steady attention from the SG.
>>>>>> Between
>>>> this and
>>>>>> the transition, we will be busy.  Not to mention the
>>>>>> regular
>>>> progression
>>>>>> of GNSO issues that are already important and hard enough.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Speaking of the IANA Transtion and the  CWG charter, I have
>>>>>> not
>>>> seen the
>>>>>> final version yet, but I do believe that the ICG language
>>>>>> was put
>>>> in as
>>>>>> recommended by Milton.  A few of us (indeed I was not a
>>>>>> lone
>>>> voice) also
>>>>>> argued to keep the last line we had indicating that the
>>>>>> IANA accountability issues were in scope for the CWG on
>>>>>> IANA transition. I think we got that in, but I am not
>>>>>> positive yet.  I am hoping the
>>>> SOACs
>>>>>> approve the charter quickly as once that happens the group
>>>>>> can
>>>> start to
>>>>>> work.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>> 
>> 
>