Hi
I asked Fadi for a reaction to the joint statement of the entire GNSO that was read out in the London public forum arguing that "We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN’s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community.” You may recall that when this was read out Fadi was reading through a stack of docs and didn’t appear to look up, so I sort of innocently asked him what he thought.
————
Bill: Okay. So I was just wondering, Fadi. I haven’t had a chance to talk to you since London, and I was wondering if you have a specific reaction to the statement that was made on behalf of all the different parts of the GNSO in the Public Forum. Steve provided some feedback, on one of the List Serve discussions, but I haven’t heard you engage on the specific ideas that people were putting forward, and whether -- how you saw those fitting into the process, and maybe that’s just because it's summer and I missed something. So, if you could maybe just clue me in on what your thinking is about the suggestions that were made, that would be really interesting to me.
Fadi: Thank you, Bill. Let me just make sure. You mean the suggestion that I just discussed in the last 10 minutes about forming a Cross Community Working Group on accountability?
Bill: No. No. The statement that was made by the GNSO leaders was about more than forming the Cross Community Working Group, which was about establishing mechanisms for accountability, and so on.
Fadi: Well, I didn't get any more detailed on what that is, frankly, since the comments at the Public Forum. Could you either now, or could we get--
Bill: I don't have the text right in front of me. Does anybody else have that in front of them? I'm not on the computer right now.
Theresa: Bill this is -- I think Steve had responded, and provided a response back.
Bill: I know that Steve did, but I was saying, I hadn't heard Fadi address the suggestions that were made.
Fadi: No. I have to look at these more closely, Bill, to be frank; before I can say something. So I will do that, and I will seek to publish something, or send you something at least -- unless others are interested -- as to my views on that, that I need to look into more closely.
Theresa, did you want to say something on that? Or, you’d rather you and I chat about this, because I haven’t focused on this since.
Theresa: No. Neither had I, and I think that the -- there had been input into the topic around accountability and it's also something that’s relevant to, you know, the overall accountability work that we are doing, but it's a specific kind of proposal. There have been similar specific kinds of proposals and topics being raised and also in the comments that were received, through the public comment process. In looking at all of those kinds of specific inputs and ideas, and suggestions; this is something that we haven’t had a chance to look through entirely either.
Fadi: And Bill, just quickly. I mean, I don't want to be evasive, because I didn't look at it closely, that’s all it is, but I will tell you that if these are proposals on specific ways we can improve our accountability, then my answer, I can tell you right now will be, let's get the process going, and feed these into the process. I will not -- it's not my role to -- say I am for that accountability mechanism, or I'm not for that one. And my role (inaudible)--
Bill: The particular point, I guess, that was emphasized as the notion of an external or independent accountability structure.
Fadi: I think what we need to do is to create a process. Create a team of people that can then start consuming all these ideas. It has to be a bottom-up, completely across community groups; that can comment on this. It is not my job to comment on this, as your President. My job is to enable the process, in a way that you are satisfied and frankly to deal with, in fact, the concerns like Elisa and others have brought up, to make sure that this is truly bottom-up and a community process. That’s my focus.
Now, do I have an opinion? Yes. But it doesn't matter to be honest, what matters is what the community wants to do to make ICANN the shining light on the hill. That’s what's important. And I assure you of that. So I will look at them nonetheless, and absorb them, and understand them, because it's -- I'm also a member of the community, but I can assure you also that I will not be commenting on any specific proposals because it's not my role to do that, it's the community's role.
-----------
So that was that…he’d not looked at the GNSO’s input closely, but it doesn’t matter what his opinion is, what matters is what the community wants to do.
Now we have been given a picture of what I guess the staff believes the community wants to do; it is attached. As Robin notes, two tiers: a Community Assembly tasked with identifying issues, to which each GNSO SG can appoint four reps; and a Community Coordination Group, that will categorize and prioritize issues identified by the assembly and then build solutions and issue final reports and recs. This group would be comprised of just one participant each from the GNSO and other SOs, a liaison with the IANA CoCo, a staff member, a AOC/ATRT expert, a board liaison, and up to seven advisors selected by the board. Those advisors would provide advice and research etc. They have in mind folks like Jan Aart Scholte, the professor who gave a talk in London. Observers would be welcome.
This is an interesting architecture.
For starters, I asked three simple questions about it:
*The perceived advantages of this new structure vs. a CCWG
*The viability of having just one rep for the GNSO’s many diverse groupings
*The rationale for 7 board-appointed advisors
There was discussion on the last call of some of these points, but no really clear answers or consensus that I could detect.
So now that this model is formally on the table for community consideration, it would make sense to provide some organized input. The registries are working on something that raises the above questions and more, NCSG hopefully can do the same.
Best,
Bill
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]>
Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Afilias
To: <[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]]
*Sent:* 05 August 2014 18:30
*To:* Theresa Swinehart; David Olive; Byron Holland;
[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>