Speaking more broadly than simply the ICANN accountability process, I think some expertise is missing at ICANN. Their response lately has been to hire folks to fill that gap. I am thinking of the following areas where I do not frankly see great expertise or concentrated focus on deliverables either in the staff or stakeholders: * holistic risk management ( I am not talking about security, or business risk) * privacy implementation * values and ethics * public policy * accountability and external audit and review I think green papers are great, but it is how we get there that counts. If the board selects a bunch of experts to do a green paper, the same way they selected a bunch of experts to do the Whois replacement (ie. the Experts Working Group on directory services for the new gTLDs, on which I just served) I am not sure we gain much in transparency and participation. So we need a process whereby the multistakeholder *community* decides we need help, and either does an open call for potential responders, or reaches agreement in the working group. This basic accountability and adherence to a multi-stakeholder model appears to be falling apart on various fronts. On a more cheerful note, it is very heartening that the stakeholder groups are working together more, and not at cross purposes. I am confident, given the tremendous and varied expertise across the groups, that a cross-community working group could come up with proposals for expert papers on the matters I listed above. We of course would have to weigh in to make sure the experts were not weighted in one direction or the other, but it could work. I agree whole heartedly with your conclusion, Seun, the members can do it better. Cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2014-08-27, 11:25, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Honestly I am yet to understand why an external "expert" should be > required in the first place and there are 2 reasons for this: > - ICANN fix is from inside: The folks who knows ICANN more are the > ICANN community itself or rather I should say they are the second set > of people (because it's expected that the staff is first but that is > irrelevant since this process is largely checking on them). So if > there is going to be a realistic accountability, more of the role > should rely on the community. > - Who are the experts: That word can be relative because I don't see > how much experience non-icann participating individual will have to > make him/her an expert. The accountability process is not audit review > where there is a general template/rule that works on different > organization. It's rather a process that improves the strength of an > organisation and it's the organisation members that can do that better. > > Cheers! > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 27 Aug 2014 15:33, "Sam Lanfranco" <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > The Role of Experts in ICANN deliberations: > > This issue is churning away in the background of various > discussions so here is a contribution to thinking about how to > handle it. > > There are two areas of concern with regard to the role of experts > in ICANN deliberations. The first, of course, is the selection of > appropriate experts for the issue/task at hand. As everyone > involved in policy and project implementation knows, knowledge and > expertise only have meaning in context, and excellent credentials > applied to the wrong task produces a double risk. The advice will > be out of context, and there is the risk of legitimating the > advice based on the credentials of the expert, rather than on the > suitability of the advice to the context. In fact, this is always > a problem, no matter how the expert selection process is > undertaken and by whom. > > This leads to the second concern, and one that is present in ICANN > deliberations. That is once the expert opinion is tabled it is > given undue weight in decision making independent of its actual > relevance and strengths. This has happened with some of the > content of recently retained ICANN expert panels, in particular > the one on enhanced multistakeholder engagement. > > There is a long standing tried and true protection against the > risks associated with both of these concerns. The British call it > the Green Paper process, and it would be simple to incorporate it > into ICANN’s use of retained expertise to assist in decision > making. It is very much like the terms of reference currently > being used for the IANA stewardship coordination group. An agreed > upon simple statement could be a mandatory part of the charter, or > terms of reference, for any expert group convened within ICANN. > Something like: > > *This expert group will identify issues and options, and may > suggest recommendations for policy or implementation, to be used > as input into the subsequent multistakeholder dialogue and > multistakeholder recommendations for action. * > > While there will still be differences of opinion as to who should > be retained as experts, such a process reduces the critical role > of expert selection in the ultimate policy decisions, and allows > the stakeholder groups to insure that subsequent use of advice is > based on the relevance of the advice to the issues at hand. It > focuses on usable outputs and not expert credentials, and > minimizes the extent to which decision making can selectively pick > elements of the advice based on self-interest. > > Sam L. >