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> >>