And wouldn't it be a thing if such grievance mechanism were not beholden to
the Board and/or Staff for its funding and hiring authority...

Anybody think we could get something approximating an "independent
judiciary" installed in this transition?

I have no idea whether this is realistic, but if it isn't completely
pie-in-the-sky then it's worth pushing for.  Could this be the "least bad"
opportunity to get something like this in place?

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 10:22 PM -0400 3/16/14, DeeDee Halleck wrote:
>Shouldn't there be some sort of statement that the ICANN board and staff
>processes must be accountable and transparent, with mechanism for redress
>of grievance.
>DeeDee
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Rafik Dammak
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>Hi Everyone,
>
>(cc NCSG-PC)
>
>Milton volunteered and drafted this statement regarding the NTIA
>announcement. we should be able to discuss (commenting here
><https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAkGj39ou5YkypFt0Vwqvyd1FTK31Ojm29s_gX-Ugrw/edit?usp=sharing>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAkGj39ou5YkypFt0Vwqvyd1FTK31Ojm29s_gX-Ugrw/edit?usp=sharing
>) and endorse it asap before Singapore meeting to show support and
>indicate our initial positions . 
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Rafik
>
>
>----------statement----------------
>
>NCSG Statement on the globalization of the IANA functions
>
>The Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) welcomes the 13 March 2014
>statement from the U.S. Commerce Department announcing its intention to
>"transition key Internet domain name functions to the global
>multistakeholder community." We support this move because an Internet
>governance regime that gives one national government exclusive powers over
>a global resource is bound to be politically biased, divisive and promote
>tendencies toward Internet fragmentation. This change is long overdue.
>
>NCSG supports all 5 of the principles NTIA proposed to guide the
>transition. We agree that the transition should:
>
>* Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
>
>* Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
>
>* Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
>the IANA services;
>
>* Maintain the openness of the Internet;
>
>* Not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental
>organization.
>
>It is very important to replace the current system with a carefully
>considered, well-designed alternative. We note that noncommercial
>stakeholders have been leaders in developing plans for the proposed
>transition. Submissions to the Netmundial conference from two NCSG
>members, the Internet Governance Project and Avri Doria, have set out
>specific blueprints for the transition.
>
>Consistent with both of these proposals, NCSG proposes an additional
>principle to guide the transition. The transition should:
>
>* Enhance the accountability of ICANN through structural separation of the
>DNS root zone management functions from ICANN's policy making functions
>
>The root zone management functions, which are currently performed by
>Verisign, Inc. and IANA under contracts with the U.S. government, are
>clerical, technical and operational, The policy making functions of ICANN,
>on the other hand, are highly political. NCSG believes that those two
>aspects of DNS governance must be kept apart, in separate organizations.
>Separating them ensures that those with policy and political objectives
>must win support for their ideas in a fair and open policy development
>process, and cannot arbitrarily impose them upon Internet users and
>service providers by virtue of their control of the operational levers of
>the global domain name system.
>
>The existing IANA contract attempts to keep the two separate; however, if
>ICANN simply absorbs the IANA and Verisign functions without any oversight
>from the U.S. government, there is a danger that the two could become
>integrated and intermingled in unhealthy ways. That is why the NCSG, along
>with supporters from other stakeholder groups, will insist on this new
>principle of separation during the transition process.
>
>The Department of Commerce has asked ICANN to "conven[e] stakeholders
>across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition
>plan." Unfortunately, ICANN's management seems to have interpreted this as
>a mandate to implement its own transition plan, in which it would simply
>take over the IANA functions with no oversight. NCSG wishes to remind
>ICANN that it has been charged with convening a process, not with
>controlling it. The transition will not work unless ICANN runs a truly
>open and deliberative process that allows the all ideas to be considered
>and the best ideas to win.
>
>NCSG is the voice of civil society and nonprofit organizations in ICANN's
>domain name policy making organ, the Generic Names Supporting
>Organization. It is composed of two constituencies, the Noncommercial
>Users Constituency (<http://ncuc.org>http://ncuc.org) and the Non-Profit
>Operational Constituencies (<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.npoc.org)
>
>----------end of statement-------
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
><http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org>http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org