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.