Dear all,
though I live at present in a region of Cambodia with no regular
reliable Internet access, I continue to follow things. Robin will
remember, from the time when we were both GNSO councilors, that we
shared this concern about lip-service to bottom-up commitments by staff,
combined with the strong role that staff took from time to time,
forgetting the community voices or GNSO procedures.
If there will be a special working group on ICANN accountability, please
allow me to be on the list, though I probably will not be able to
participate always in a timely manner.
We should never give up to raise our concerns.
Norbert
Kep/Cambodia
=
On 8/8/2014 2:18 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Ditto. Thanks for your leadership on this Rafik. I know from past
> conversations how close these issues are to your heart. Please count
> me in, in whatever form the group takes.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:34:39 -0700
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: FYI - Recording and Transcript of 4
> August 2014 ICANN Accountability Leadership Discussion
>
> Thanks, Rafik. I very much support your suggestion that we form a
> dedicated work team to focus on ICANN accountability and
> coordinate our efforts in the most effective way. Should we set
> up a dedicated email list and begin to formulate a response to
> staff's proposal?
> Best,
> Robin
> On Aug 7, 2014, at 3:58 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi ,
>> @Robin yes you can share with me (and in the list) your questions
>> and I will send them to staff.
>> I attended the call and the tone and substance of the responses
>> were quite concerning. my first question there was about the role
>> and involvement of the board for selecting the experts and it was
>> not really answered.
>> At GNSO level, the different "leaders" of stakeholders group and
>> constituencies are discussing what should be done and
>> following-up the statement we made for the public forum in London
>> ICANN meeting. I will send more updates soon.
>> CEO, board and staff represent a stakeholder or interest group in
>> this particular process and so we should design one where they
>> can create less interference so we need specific suggestions here
>> to mitigate the risks. the idea of cross-community group was also
>> discussed but there are still open questions because it is not
>> just about changing the label from community assembly. we are
>> also still waiting for the summary of comments from the public
>> comments period.
>> what I suggest:
>> - we as NCSG, should a setup an ad-hoc group to follow-up of our
>> statement on accountability but also individual comments from
>> members. we need to be responsive and following exclusively the
>> process, lasting for months, with dedicated volunteers who can
>> volunteer and keep other members updated. so this is proposal to
>> be discussed and kind of call for volunteers. I welcome
>> suggestions on how to implement this. Registries SG set up its
>> own internal working group on accountability, we can adopt such
>> best practices and experiment (not sure if ALAC has its group too)
>> - as quick action : collecting and consolidating all questions
>> and comments regrading the draft proposal from ICANN staff such
>> as questions from Robin.
>> Best Regards,
>> Rafik
>> 2014-08-07 3:19 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>
>> Yes, indeed. I listened to the call and was disappointed by
>> staff's proposal to control the accountability process and
>> defensiveness when called on it. We have been asking staff
>> for information on what it would be proposing for a couple
>> months (at GNSO mtg & last "leaders" call) and we were just
>> told not to worry about it, that staff was busy compiling the
>> input and would dialogue with us soon. Finally, without
>> seeing the "synthesis" of the community input, we get this
>> half-baked proposal from Fadi that calls for a process of
>> two-tier accountability groups in which board-staff controls
>> the group that "prioritizes" issues and "solutions". The 7
>> "experts" board selects for this group aren't really part of
>> a "community" coordination group. Experts are great, but
>> they should be selected by and report to the community (not
>> board-staff) and not pretend like they represent stakeholders
>> in the community. Also, staff's proposal doesn't quite say
>> who will be making final decisions regarding the output of
>> the groups proposed. Also, staff should be in this group in
>> an informational / support / liaison sort of role, not as an
>> equal participant with the community members.
>>
>> Rather than try to design the whole accountability process
>> internally to create a process that board-staff could control
>> the output of, the community should have been engaged in the
>> formulation of this proposal, as we've been asking every time
>> we get to speak to them.
>>
>> It seems like the input staff will now take is minor, around
>> the edges and relating to the community assembly / working
>> group -- and NOT the more important decisional body it is
>> proposing. Hopefully we can get some significant changes and
>> clarifications to this staff proposal for accountability at
>> ICANN before Fadi declares that the community is aligned in
>> support of his plan.
>>
>> Rafik, can you relay my concerns back to staff? (or if there
>> is a mechanism for me to do that, I'd be glad to do it
>> myself). But this accountability plan is half-baked and
>> needs more input from the community before it should go forward.
>>
>> When will staff learn that trust must be earned and these
>> sorts of constant shenanigans only hinder confidence and
>> trust in ICANN's legitimacy to govern?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Aug 6, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> > Interesting reading
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> >
>> > -------- Original Message --------
>> > Subject: [council] FW: FYI - Recording and Transcript
>> of 4 August 2014
>> > ICANN Accountability Leadership Discussion
>> > Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 07:34:10 +0100
>> > From: Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> > Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> > Organization: Afilias
>> > To: <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > FYI.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Audio not attached (its 16MB). All available at the link below.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jonathan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *From:*Robert Hoggarth [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>> > *Sent:* 05 August 2014 18:30
>> > *To:* Theresa Swinehart; David Olive; Byron Holland;
>> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
>> Jonathan Robinson; Louie Lee; Olivier MJ
>> > Crepin-Leblond; Patrik Fältström; Jun Murai; Lars-Johan
>> Liman; Elisa
>> > Cooper; tony holmes; Kristina Rosette; Rafik Dammak;
>> William Drake; Rudi
>> > Vansnick; Michele Neylon :: Blacknight; Drazek, Keith
>> > *Cc:* Susie Johnson; Tina Shelebian; Global Leadership;
>> Duncan Burns;
>> > Samantha Eisner; Bart Boswinkel; Marika Konings; Heidi
>> Ullrich; Steve Sheng
>> > *Subject:* FYI - Recording and Transcript of 4 August 2014
>> ICANN
>> > Accountability Leadership Discussion
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Attached please find the recording of yesterday's
>> discussion along with
>> > the call transcript and the AC Room chat transcript. All three
>> > documents are now posted on the CEO-SO/AC/SG Leadership
>> Connect page
>> > at
>> https://community.icann.org/display/soaceinputfdback/Event+Calendar
>> .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Rob
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > <Transcript - Special ICANN Acctblty
>> Session_20140804_SOACSG_Fadi.pdf><August 4 2014 Chat Special
>> Session.pdf>
>>
|