NCSG Responses to Accountability & Transparency Review Team Questions

[William Drake]

Hello again,

After playing with different options, Rafik and I decided to put the ATRT questions on the Social Text site.  He's posted them at https://st.icann.org/ncsg-ec/index.cgi?atrt_questionaire.   Any and all member responses to whichever questions you feel like addressing would be very helpful.  

Thanks much,

Bill


On Jun 11, 2010, at 11:31 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> As has been mentioned on the list a few times over the past couple of weeks, there's a lot going on now with respect to the Review Team mechanism set up in accordance with the Affirmation of Commitments, e.g.
> 
> Council last night took up the motion to approve the GNSO endorsement process.  https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_june_motions  Alas, unexpected complications, the IPC wants an amendment that would make the process more formal, political, and time consuming without in my view adding any value—basically to ensure that if the Council decides to endorse any additional people in order to increase the diversity of GNSOs nominees, it can only do so from a small subset that the SGs have specified in advance rather than the whole applicant pool, so as to maximize SG control and veto power.  As the proposer of the motion I consider the amendment unfriendly (other words come to mind, but will leave it there).  In addition, the CSG more generally has decided that it is not sure we should have a fixed process as agreed months ago for the routine handling of RT nomination cycles, they apparently would like to have a fresh negotiation and drafting exercise each time.  So the motion's been put on hold to Brussels, which should add to the fun of the public meeting...sigh...
> Today is the deadline if anyone wants to put their name into consideration as an Independent Expert for the ATRT http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-02jun10-en.htm
> Applications to serve on the upcoming review teams on WHOIS and on Security, Stability and Reliability are due 15 July http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01jun10-en.htm  and NCSG will need to come up with one name per team to endorse as its representative thereafter, preferably by the end of July; hopefully some folks will consider putting their names forward...
> Finally, the ATRT has posed a series of questions for public comment, with replies being due 1 July http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18may10-en.htm
> 
> NCSG discussed the fourth item above at some length on Wednesday night's call.  This is a really important opportunity for us to weigh in and raise its concerns on two key fronts:
> 
> a)  NC's experiences with ICANN's accountability & transparency, how we and our efforts to organize ourselves and promote engagement have been impacted by the actions of management etc, and
> 
> b) The broader fit between ICANN's actions/policies and the sort of public interest values we're all here to champion.
> 
> We will meet with the ATRT in Brussels on Tuesday 22 June.  They've asked us for some sense of the agenda, what we want to talk about.  And we have six days after Brussels ends, 1 July, to submit any written replies to their questions.  By that point we presumably will have learned from the board whether they're going to accept our charter, which could affect how we calibrate our views on a) above.
> 
> So: people on the NCSG call agreed that we really need to get some dialogue going on how we see these matters and to start specifying whatever concerns we want to raise with the ATRT in Brussels and then in written responses.  Bear in mind the point that Willie raised in his message last week, the ATRT is really looking for concrete examples, illustrative 'case studies' of issues that they can dig into, so clear and concrete points that can be empirically investigated are probably more useful than general impressions and opinions (although the latter could be conveyed too to round out the picture).  I'm hoping that in the next few days we'll construct some sort of web space where replies to each question can be more easily aggregated and compared, but in the hope of getting the juices going, below I have pasted the ATRT's questions.  Please do give them some thought and let's see if we can provide the RT some guidance on issues and perspectives they might not otherwise be aware of.
> 
> Oh, I should add that while a joint NCSG response would be ideal, people are of course free to respond individually to the questions on the PC space too....
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> Affirmation of Commitments Accountability and Transparency Review Team Questions for the ICANN Community
> 
> In the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders.
> The AoC Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) is in the process of analyzing stakeholder and community input that has been submitted on these topics prior to the AoC (i.e., comments on Improving Institutional Confidence, submissions to the NTIA NOI on expiration of the JPA, etc.). However, the ATRT would also like to understand if there are new inputs or changes in stakeholder views since the establishment of the AoC. With that context in mind, please provide responses to the following questions:
> 
> 1.	Do you think ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders? Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN did not act in an accountable manner? If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe ICANN’s actions were not taken in an accountable manner.
> 
> 2.	Do ICANN’s accountability mechanisms, including the Ombudsman, the Board reconsideration procedure and the Independent Review Panel provide meaningful accountability and, if not, how could they be improved?
> 
> 3.	Do you think ICANN’s processes and decision making is transparent? Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN did not act in a transparent manner. If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe ICANN’s actions were not taken in a transparent manner. Are ICANN’s transparency mechanisms robust and how could they be improved?
> 
> 4.	What is your general assessment of ICANN's commitment to the interests of global Internet users? Can you provide a specific example(s) when ICANN did not act in the interests of global Internet users? If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe ICANN’s actions were not taken in a manner consistent with the interests of global Internet users.
> 
> 5.	What is your assessment of the ICANN Board of Directors’ governance with respect to the following factors:
> ongoing evaluation of Board performance, 
> the Board selection process, 
> the extent to which Board composition meets ICANN’s present and future needs , and 
> whether an appeal mechanism for Board decisions is needed?
> 
> 6.  What is your assessment of the role of the GAC and its interaction with the Board? How do you view the role of the GAC within the overall ICANN process?
> What is your assessment of the interaction between the GAC and the Board?
> Should the GAC be viewed as the body best placed to advise the Board on what constitutes the "public interest" regarding the coordination of the DNS?
> 
> 7.  Are additional steps needed to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS? If so, what specific steps would you recommend?
> 
> 8.  What is your assessment of the processes by which ICANN receives public input? What is your assessment on how ICANN receives input of English-speaking and non-English speaking communities? ? Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN did not adequately receive public input from English or non-English speakers? If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe ICANN’s actions were taken without adequate public input.
> 
> 9. Does ICANN provide adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof? Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN did not provide adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof? If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe ICANN’s actions were taken without adequate explanation of decisions taken and the accompanying rationale.
> 
> 10.  What is your assessment of the extent to which ICANN’s decisions are embraced, supported and accepted by the public and the Internet community? Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN decisions were not embraced, supported and accepted by the public and the Internet community? If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe ICANN’s actions were taken without adequate support and acceptance by the public and the Internet community.
> 
> 11. What is your assessment of the policy development process in ICANN with regard to:
> facilitating enhanced cross-community deliberations, and 
> effective and timely policy development
> 
> Can you identify a specific example(s) when the policy making process in ICANN did not facilitate cross-community deliberations or result in effective and timely policy development? If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe the policy making process in ICANN did not facilitate cross- community deliberations or result in effective and timely policy development.

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100612/2e661edb/attachment.html>