On 15/08/2014 10:01 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > > I have a few bullets that pull me to mostly different conclusions. > > - deferring to me in such matters is never the right thing to do. In > social circumstances it is a lovely thing, but on a list, never. > > - i tend to think of Staff as stakeholders too, though of a very > different sort. When the multistakeholder definition says 'everyone', > forme, it has to mean them too. I disagree strongly. As individuals or anything else they can chime in in the relevant SG. But just like a public office clerk also is a citizen, she does not vote as public office clerk. We may not be able to prevent her from informally participating in democratic policy-making as clerk, but we should definitely resist giving clerks representational powers. > Certainly their role as staff constrains their behaviors. But sitting > at the table to discuss accountability, especially when one of the big > issues is staff whistleblowing and the safety with which they can do so, > it seems to me they should have a seat. That is a different issue, one in which staff's needs need to be listened to, but the existence of this issue does not transform staff into stakeholders. > > - this is broader than the inside ICANN community. The accountability > is accountability to the global multuistakeholder community by ICANN on > issues of critical Internet resources. > I see these experts as being asked to give that viewpoint. > Now I fear so-called experts, they can be good or oh so > awful. I think removing the choice of the experts from the Board/Staff > political decision makers and giving it to the group of the 'wise' - the > Public Experts Group (PEG)*, is real and can be made meaningful. I > think we should save our voice for our reaction to the choosing of the > Public Experts Group. Any expert picked for the PEG or coordination > group should be ready for the approval or approbation of the larger > Internet governance community - both inside and outside of ICANN - a > place that can seem very cruel at times. > > - the coordination group does not make decisions, it builds "solution > requirements for issues with input from the Cross Community Group" This > is still ICANN where any solution they propose is subjected to full > public comment and Board approval. It is good to see they made this > explicit. This is more like an advisory organization, seeming somewhat > a hybird between an advisory committee and a supporting organization - > time will tell. It is a lot like the AOC in some aspects, except that > it is NOT the Board Chair, CEO and GAC chair deciding who is on the > entire team. And it has a feeder mechanism for continuous community > input. I think they did well on building a basic organizational > structure for this effort. Thanks for clarifying this. I see the merits of what has been brought forward, though I'm still trying to wrap my head around whether I like it or not. Would it be really difficult to have the SGs select the wise folks? This seems, to me, to be the relevant question here. Nicolas > > - the community group is the place to be. I agree completely with > > >> 3. Please note: “All stakeholders that wish to participate in the >> Cross Community Group may indicate their involvement by submitting >> their names to [log in to unmask]” It would be >> great to get as many members as we can on the Group. The sign on >> process has begun. >> > I have sent my signup request. > > On the other recommendations, if you really think you can change things > for the better or if saying I told you so is important, by all means > write the strong letter. > > I plan to focus on steps going forward. And of course I will comment on > any letter people come up with. > > avri > > * who incidentally had better pass an ICANN giggle test - being > announced will be a very painful experience for them if the community > thinks they are crap > > On 15-Aug-14 09:00, Edward Morris wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> While certainly willing to defer to those, like Avri, with more >> experience as to what actually is possible within the ICANN universe, >> I do feel compelled to note that the revised accountability plan, to >> use a highly technical term, stinks. As in stinks big time. Despite >> slight modifications, it is still a process dominated by the same >> staff and Board that to date have repeatedly resisted all attempts at >> true accountability and transparency. >> >> To wit: >> >> 1. Despite community objection, we still have an ICANN staff member >> as a full participating member of the Coordination Group. The >> precedent this sets is untenable. Once staff begins participating in >> the decision-making process they cease to be neutral facilitators of >> the process. Not only does this turn bottom up multi-stakeholderism >> on its head, it presents practical problems in terms of trust: if >> staff are involved in debating and making decisions, how can they be >> relied upon to neutrally manage the process? >> >> 2. The role of experts is essentially unchanged, despite widespread >> community opposition. They are not merely advisory; they are full >> participants in the process. >> >> ICANN notes, “Some stakeholders called for stakeholder selection of >> the advisors, and suggested that ICANN involvement in this process is >> not appropriate. Others called for coordination between ICANN and >> stakeholders in the selection of advisors”. ICANN responds by doing >> neither. >> >> Instead it creates a Public Experts Group (PEG), selected by staff, >> which will then select the expert members of the Coordination Group. >> How this is seen as being responsive to community concerns baffles >> me. Staff selects the experts who select the experts who participate >> as full members of the Coordination Group. There is no mechanism for >> ANY community involvement whatsoever in the selection of experts. >> We’re not entitled to even make a mere suggestion. >> >> Staff justifies the inclusion of experts as participants, rather >> than advisors, by saying ICANN is responding to outside concern. The >> world is watching and external advice is needed to meet these >> concerns. >> >> Yet the Thune/ Rubio letter Mr. Chehade often refers to when citing >> outside pressure specifically calls for “additional oversight tools” >> to be given to the “multistakeholder community”. Perhaps if we say >> “pretty please” the experts selected by experts selected by staff in >> collaboration with staff selected by staff and a Board member >> selected by the Board will give the “multistakeholder community” >> “additional oversight tools” to monitor the Board and staff. Perhaps >> the moon is made of blue cheese. Anything is possible, I suppose. >> Real oversight, as opposed to a facade of oversight, is presumably >> not in the immediate self interest of staff or Board. >> >> An additional concern is the limitation in scope of the >> qualifications of the Public Experts Group. The PEG members are >> required to have “strong backgrounds in academia, governmental >> relations, global insight, and the AoC”. Two areas of concern: >> >> 1. ICANN is a corporation. It is not a government, it is not (yet, >> at least) an international organization, it is a California public >> benefits corporation. We are trying to create accountability and >> transparency mechanisms for a private corporation, yet staff omits >> corporate governance as a vital area in which expert advice is >> needed. By controlling the scope of competence of the experts, staff >> is dictating the scope of inquiry of the entire project. We need to >> be conscious of this and react accordingly as the process moves on. >> >> 2. It appears that rather than set criteria and then find the >> experts for the PEG, ICANN has already selected the experts to be >> included in the group. Four background areas (is there any such thing >> as an expert on the AoC?), four expert slots. If this is the >> situation, and it may very well not be although I suspect it is, the >> process certainly does not comply with any sort of best practices for >> governance that I know of. >> >> Suggested Action Plan >> >> 1. While agreeing with Avri that we need to begin sorting how we are >> going to work within the proposed structure, I also believe we need >> to issue a strong statement in opposition to the plan as currently >> proposed. Staff modifications to the initial model are simply not >> sufficient to bless this proposal with our approval. >> >> Although such a statement might not create any change in the process >> going forward, should the outcome be as bad as we may fear I’d like >> to be able to point to our ongoing opposition to the rigged structure >> when criticizing the outcome. Complete silence to the modified model >> at this point might be construed as approval. We could then, at a >> later stage, be accused of buying into the structure at the start and >> only criticizing the modified model later when we didn’t like the >> policy outputs. I’d like to avoid that. >> >> 2. Although staff has not tasked our SG with recommending expert >> members of the Coordination Group I’d suggest we do so any way. The >> NCSG is the most diverse community within ICANN; our networks are >> vast. Let’s plug into them and be proactive. Once we have a list of a >> few names of folks we’d like to see involved on the Coordination >> Group we can use it as follows: >> >> a. We can send the list to the selected members of the PEG and ask >> that the individuals listed be given full consideration by the PEG >> for inclusion in the Coordination Group; >> >> b. There is a provision in the modified plan by where “the Cross >> Community Group may provide suggestions on external experts they >> feel would be helpful to the accountability effort”. By having >> already considered the situation we'll be prepared to offer names of >> experts when required. >> >> In the hope of stimulating further recommendations, I’ll start by >> suggesting that Dr. Deirdre Ahern of Trinity College Dublin would be >> an excellent selection for the Coordination Group. In addition to be >> an acknowledged expert in board governance, one of the many areas of >> expertise identified by ICANN as being needed on the Coordination >> Group, Dr. Ahern also has a subspecialty in Internet Law and, in >> fact, teaches the I-Law course at Trinity, Ireland’s most prestigious >> university. You can read more about Dr. Ahern here: >> https://www.tcd.ie/Law/deirdreahern/index.php. I hope you agree with >> me that she’d be a qualified exceptional choice for the Coordination >> Group. Equally, I hope others have people in mind that they would >> like to suggest for either the Coordination Group or for other as yet >> defined consultative processes. >> >> 3. Please note: “All stakeholders that wish to participate in the >> Cross Community Group may indicate their involvement by submitting >> their names to [log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>.” It would be great to >> get as many members as we can on the Group. The sign on process has >> begun. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ed >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] To: >> [log in to unmask] Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 06:41:01 +0000 >> Subject: Re: Accountability plan >> >> Hi all Mho is that the more we are evolving the more we will enter in >> the secret of gods. Really intersting ! Cheers ! -Olévié- >> >> Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:rafik.dammak%40GMAIL.COM>> a écrit : >> >>> Hi Avri, >>> >>> Thanks, it is definitely an interesting reading :) and as NCSG we >> have to >>> make some actions and that is coming soon. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-08-15 12:24 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:avri%40acm.org>>: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Well the final plan for the Accountability process seems to be >>>> out. >>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-14-en >>>> >>>> I think our next step is to start figuring out how we are going >> to work >>>> with it. We have done whatever we could to adjust it based on >>>> NCSG principles, but at this point, I think that phase of the >>>> process is pretty much over. I believe that the effect of the >>>> various GNSO SG letters was positive as I think the process is >>>> better now than the earlier version we saw. I think there is >>>> stuff I could quibble >> about, >>>> but structurally the plan makes sense to me, and I think it can >> work as >>>> a way for the community, both inside ICANN and the global >> community, to >>>> do something to improve ICANN accountability. I think it could >> achieve >>>> a lot given the dependency of the transition process on the >>>> accountability process. >>>> >>>> It looks like that at least for the next year, it is going to >> involve a >>>> whole bunch of work and steady attention from the SG. Between >> this and >>>> the transition, we will be busy. Not to mention the regular >> progression >>>> of GNSO issues that are already important and hard enough. >>>> >>>> Speaking of the IANA Transtion and the CWG charter, I have not >> seen the >>>> final version yet, but I do believe that the ICG language was >>>> put >> in as >>>> recommended by Milton. A few of us (indeed I was not a lone >> voice) also >>>> argued to keep the last line we had indicating that the IANA >>>> accountability issues were in scope for the CWG on IANA >>>> transition. I think we got that in, but I am not positive yet. I >>>> am hoping the >> SOACs >>>> approve the charter quickly as once that happens the group can >> start to >>>> work. >>>> >>>> >>>> avri >>>>