Hi everyone,

below the response from Theresa to our statement and the Registries and BC
statement.
the latest proposal will be posted soon too and what I can say is that we
need to be ready for commenting it. it should be the first task for the
ad-hoc group we set-up.

Best,

Rafik


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Theresa Swinehart <>
Date: 2014-08-14 11:00 GMT+09:00
Subject: Re: Joint RySG and BC Position Statement on ICANN Staff's Proposed
Accountability Process
To:


 Dear Rafik, Keith, Elisa, and Tony



Thank you for all of your thoughtful additional input to the accountability
process.  As I also shared in a note last week, we have already considered
further revisions to the accountability process based on the feedback
received on the draft shared on the SO/AC/SG call last week. The revised
process – along with a summary and analysis of the public comments focused
on process – will be posted this week. The summary and analysis is focused
on the process, not the substantive input received on accountability topics
and proposed solutions; those inputs will be addressed through the process.



As you can imagine there is a wide range of interest in the accountability
process both within the ICANN community and outside the community. This is
a critical inflection point for all stakeholders within ICANN – including
ICANN itself.  The accountability process and looking at whether any
additional accountability mechanisms are needed in light of the changing
historical relationship with the US is a process of interest to the ICANN
community and far beyond the ICANN community. It would be premature (and
not for ICANN staff) to pre-determine the outcome of the process, and
whether for example one of the outcomes may be the establishment of the
independent accountability mechanism as called for in the GNSO joint
statement in London. This is for the process to address together with the
other substantive issues and solutions identified by the community.



It is this broader view of the goals and possibilities of this work that
ICANN is relying on in building the accountability process.  Just as there
is a very important role for all ICANN stakeholders in this conversation,
there is also a need to ensure there’s acceptance outside the immediate
ICANN community. Thus the approach must allow for variations of existing
models, complemented by identifying external expertise to enable this
process to reach conclusions that are acceptable both within the ICANN
community and outside the ICANN community. In the ICANN multistakeholder
model, the range of interests well outside the community are as equally
relevant to this process as the immediate ICANN community.



The multistakeholder ICANN Community is not separate and apart from the
ICANN entity.  The cross community working group called for in your letter
may be independent of ICANN staff or Board, but it is not independent from
ICANN. We appreciated the concern about ICANN staff or Board identifying up
to 7 advisors to the coordination group and have modified this to ensure
the appointments are not done that way. We look forward to discussing the
revised process on the call on the 14 August. As one small addition, I
noted the reference to the GNSO’s policy development process in Keith and
Elisa’s note.  While there is always the possibility that some of this
accountability work may result in items that need to be referred to a PDP,
this accountability process is not a PDP.


There has been substantial time available for discussion of the
accountability process which began in May, ending in June, including the
ICANN 50 meeting.   ICANN will post the process shortly after sharing it
with the SO/AC/SG leadership on 14 August – ICANN has a responsibility to
be responsive to the community as a whole to allow this process to move
forward.  The work ahead is going to be challenging, and we trust that you
will bring the enthusiasm you bring to the process design to the
accountability work itself.

Kind regards,

Theresa