ok done


On 11-Aug-14 12:23, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>  
> Thanks for doing this.
>  
> Would it be possible to insert the word "transparency" in the document
> somewhere? I'd suggest here: 
> 
> 
>     inherent conflict of interest behind staff developing its own
>     accountability *and transparency* mechanisms, so it was surprising
>     to see that input had
>      
> 
>  
> but anywhere is fine. The important thing is to keep the concept alive,
> and the concept of accountability broad.
>  

DRAFT
Proposed NCSG Statement on ICANN Staff’s Accountability Plan  v.03

The NCSG appreciates this opportunity to provide feedback regarding the
ICANN Staff’s non-stakeholder led proposal for further work on
“Enhancing Accountability” at ICANN.

A number of public comments and discussions in London focused on the
inherent conflict of interest behind staff developing its own
accountability and transparency mechanisms, so it was surprising to see
that input had not been taken into account by staff in the development
of this proposal. NCSG notes its disappointment with the staff having
skipped the step of providing a synthesis of the community feedback
received from the ICANN public comments forum and the London
accountability discussions. Staff had stated it was working on this
during GNSO Council and SO/AC leadership calls since the London meeting,
and that was over a month ago; normally, staff can produce a synthesis
of a comment period with a week, so we are at a loss to explain this
delay.  NCSG reiterates its request to see the 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. It is
difficult to find those elements in the written comments.  At a time
when the world is indeed watching ICANN to discern if it can be trusted
without NTIA oversight of its global governance functions, and is
particularly interested in the formulation of a proposal for resolving
ICANN’s accountability crisis, to skip the step of providing the
rationale for staff’s proposal, including its basis in the community’s
stakeholder comments, 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 proposal at the
11th hour.  This is an example of top-down policymaking, which runs
counter to ICANN’s bottom-up methodology and may inspire mistrust on the
part of the stakeholders.

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 as such it replicates 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 mechanisms, 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 voice 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 decision making role that representatives of
stakeholder interests 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-decision making, support or liaison function.   For the CCG to
have legitimacy as a participatory form of democracy, the
decision-making members must consist of stakeholders, not the ICANN
board and staff.  The make-up, roles and responsibilities 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.