Looks ok to me and I agree with Robin -- pretty much aligned with the
draft RySG statement.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 08/08/2014 05:52 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> Should have sent the draft text along also:
> 
> 
> DRAFT
> Proposed NCSG Statement on ICANN Staff’s Accountabillity Plan  v.01
> 
> The NCSG appreciates this opportunity to provide feedback regarding the
> ICANN staff’s proposed plan for “Enhancing Accountability” at ICANN.  
> 
> NCSG notes its disappointment, however, with the staff skipping the step
> of providing a synthesis of the community feedback received from the
> ICANN public comments forum and the London accountability discussions,
> as staff had stated it was working on during GNSO Council and SO/AC
> leadership calls since the London meeting.  NCSG reiterates its request
> to see that synthesis of public input upon which staff relied in the
> formulation of its accountability proposal.  It is impossible to know
> where the components of staff’s proposal come from and on what basis
> they are called for without being privy to staff’s assessment of the
> public input on the subject.  At a time when the world is indeed
> watching ICANN to discern if it can be trusted with no oversight of its
> global govern functions, and particularly on the issue of formulating a
> proposal for resolving ICANN’s accountability crisis, to skip the step
> of providing the intellectual justification for staff’s proposal seems
> imprudent at best.  From its inception, the community should have been
> engaged in the formulation of the proposal on the table, not pressured
> into signing-off on a staff created proposal at the 11th hour.  This is
> an example of top-down policymaking which engenders mistrust.  A number
> of public comments and discussion in London were around the inherent
> conflict of interest behind staff developing its own accountability
> mechanisms so it was disappointing to see that input hadn’t been taken
> into account by staff in the development of this proposal.
> 
> Regarding the substance of the staff proposal, the NCSG does not support
> it as currently drafted.  Of particular concern is the proposed
> Community Coordination Group, which would prioritize issues identified
> by the community and build solutions for those issues.  As proposed by
> staff, this group is too heavily controlled by the ICANN board and staff
> and so it does not remove the problem of ICANN’s accountability
> structures being circular and lacking independence.  Given the
> overwhelming number of public comments submitted supporting the need for
> an independent accountability mechanism, it is unclear on what basis
> ICANN staff proposed a solution in which the ICANN board and staff would
> fill a large number of the seats on the CCG.  It is also unclear on what
> basis staff thinks board-picked advisors should have an equal vote as
> representatives of community members.  Outside experts are welcome and
> can provide valuable input, but they should be selected by and report to
> the community, not the board or staff for independent accountability to
> be achieved.  And advisors role must be clarified as an informational
> role, rather than a voting role that representatives of stakeholders
> would hold in a bottom-up process.  It is also necessary that the role
> of any ICANN Board or Staff on this CCG serve in a non-voting support or
> liaison function.   For the CCG to have legitimacy as a representational
> form of democracy, its voting members must consist of representatives of
> the stakeholders that ICANN seeks to govern, not the ICANN board and
> staff.  The make-up and roles of the members of the proposed CCG must be
> reformulated in a more bottom-up fashion by the community for this
> proposal to be acceptable.
> 
> 
> On Aug 8, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Here is a link for an open Google doc to draft the NCSG accountability
>> proposal stmt:
>>  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Imjv-1teQYTjlYDncRLzj1YF3SXedF5nVJg7UAYOIXs/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> I've taken a first stab at crafting something to get us started.
>>  Editors and others who wish to contribute, please hack away!
>>
>> Thank you!
>> Robin
>