Thank you Avri I like It! Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8335 2487 Enviado desde mi iPhone > El 11/08/2014, a las 10:47, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> escribió: > > 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.