Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: BC comment on Accountability and Transparency Review Team recommendations

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My apologies to be so delayed in comments. In general, Steve has done an 
excellent job, and I do regret that I was consumed by Internet governance 
crisises elsewhere. 

I look forward to our call. 

GENERAL COMMENT: 

I want to suggest that 'acting in the public interest in decisions and policies 
actually has to be more generally debated and considered, but I am not 
comfortable, right now, with saying it is limited to ensuring registration and 
resolution services. 

PROPOSED CHANGE: ICANN's inclusion of the public interest should be focused on 
the core mission and core values.   The BC members recognize that decisions 
taken about ICANN"s core functions have implications and impact on the 
Internet's operation as a stable, secure, resilient, and predictable network of 
networks and a core infrastructure platform relied on by the world's Internet 
and online users.  

We strongly urge that during the Strat Plan process that the community be 
further consulted and encouraged to discuss the scope and scale of ICANN's 
responsibility to act in the public interest, and how to reach consensus within 
ICANN's stakeholders regarding this important aspect. 

BACKGROUND COMMENT:
For instance, ICANN's program of introducing new gTLDs has been filled with 
decisions that could be seen as ensuring registration and resolution services, 
but overlooked the critical impact on risks and threats [negative 
externalities] transferred over to the actual builders and operators of 
Internet and Internet services, such as name collisions.  It took a strong and 
organized small ad hoc effort across several constituencies and ALAC and GAC to 
demand that ICANN 'adjust' its attitude and approach to study and understand 
how to address in a somewhat responsible manner informing the affected parties 
who operate networks and networking services. 

GAC related recommendations:
CHANGE: THE BC SUPPORTS CERTAIN OF THE ATRT2 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTS THAT 
THE SUGGESTIONS IN SOME INSTANCES NEED FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE GAC MEMBERS 
ABOUT IMPLEMENTABILITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS, INCLUDING COSTS AND SUPPORT WHICH 
MAY BE NEEDED.
SECONDLY, THE BC DISAGREES THAT ANY ORGANIZATION WITHIN ICANN SHOULD BE 
REQUIRED TO ONLY HAVE OPEN MEETINGS.  THE GAC HAS BEEN MAKING GREAT PROGRESS ON 
OPENING MEETINGS, AND POSTING TRANSCRIPTS, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE 
TIMES WHEN ANY GROUP NEEDS TO HAVE PRIVATE -- OR MEMBER ONLY -- DELIBERATIONS.  
WE WOULD PREFER TO SEE A MORE ASPIRATIONAL RECOMMENDATION THAT RECOGNIZES THE 
NEED FOR PRIVATE CONSULTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS.

WE ALSO NOTE THAT ICANN'S SUPPORT OF THE GAC IS HIGHLY INADEQUATE IN 
INFRASTUCTURE SUPPORT FOR THE MEETING ROOMS THEY ARE GIVEN, WITH THE GROWTH AND 
EXPANSION OF THE GAC, AND THE INCREASED ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS 
OF GOVERNMENTS WHO ACCOMPANY THE GAC OFFICIAL MEMBER. THIS INCREASED ATTENDANCE 
AND PARTICIPATION SHOULD BE HIGHLY APPRECIATED, AND ICANN MUST DO A MUCH BETTER 
JOB OF PROVIDING A WELL SUITED MEETING ROOM ENVIRONMENT.  

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS:
in general, I support Steve's draft. However, I offer a further elaboration. 

POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL COMMENT: 
FINALLY, THE BC NOTES WITH DISAPPOINTMENT THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GAC 
OPENNESS WERE NOT ECHOED IN THE BOARD AND STAFF INTERACTIONS, AND THAT THE 
BOARD/STAFF CONSULTATIONS AND BOARD DELIBERATIONS ARE ACTUALLY MUCH MORE CLOSED 
THAN ANY OTHER GROUP AT ICANN, WITH THE AMOUNT OF BRIEFING, DISCUSSIONS AND 
CONSIDERATION DISCUSSIONS ARE NOW TOTALLY NON TRASPARENT, AND ARE OFTEN NOW 
DONE IN PRIVATE 'WORKSHOPS/RETREATS' WHERE BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF AND INVITED 
BRIEFERS MEET, WITH WITH EXTREMELY LIMITED TRANSPARENCY, IF ANY.  AS AN 
ORGANIZATION THAT ASPIRES TO BE THE ROLE MODEL FOR TRANSPARENCY AND 
ACCOUNTABILITY, IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED.  THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST ONE FULL 
FACE TO FACE MEETING DURING AN ICANN MEETING, THAT IS ACTUALLY A SUBSTANTIVE 
BOARD MEETING, WITH THE ABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY TO SIT IN OBSERVER STATUS.  
FURTHER, THE PUBLIC FORUM NEEDS TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE PRESENT APPROACH. AT 
PRESENT, THE CHANGE THAT THE BOARD INITIATED TO PUT THEIR PROFORMA BOARD 
INTERACTION IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PUBLIC FORUM MEANS THAT THE BOARD COMPLETELY 
IGNORES THE COMMUNITY'S COMMENTS DURING THE PUBLIC FORUM.

UNFORTUNATELY, AND REGRETABLY, THIS HAS LED TO A GROWING VIEW BY MANY, SINCE 
THEIR IS ALSO CONCERN ABOUT HOW PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE BEING ANALYZED, AND TAKEN 
INTO ACCOUNT IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS, THAT INPUT AND PUBLIC COMMENT 
PROCESSES ARE LESS AND LESS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD.  THIS IS A REGRETABLE BUT 
GROWING PERCEPTION. 

CONSIDERATION OF DECISION MAKING INPUTS AND APPEALS PROCESSES:
ADDITIONAL COMMENT:
9.2: 
ICANN LACKS ACCOUNTABILITY AND APPEALS PROCESSES THAT ARE MEANINGFUL AND 
REFLECTIVE OF WHAT IS EXPECTED IN THE AOC, AND WORTHY OF AN ORGANIZATION WITH 
ICANN'S CORE MANDATE.
IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE COMPOSITION OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY COMMITTEE BE 
INCLUSIVE OF THE COMMUNITY, NOT MADE UP OF OUTSIDE PARTIES WHO LACK ANY 
EXPERIENCE OR UNDERSTANDING OF ICANN AND ITS RESPONSIBILITIES.  SUPPORTIVE WORK 
MAY BE DONE BY OUTSIDE EXPERTS.  

FURTHER, THE REVIEW AND POSSIBLE REFORM OF THE OMBUDSMAN OFFICE AND ITS 
INDEPENDENCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ALONGSIDE OTHER REVIEW MECHANISMS.

FOR SOME TIME, THERE HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT CONCERN ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW 
PANEL AND THE RECONSIDERATION PROCESS. THE NEW GTLD PROGRAM IS NOT THE ONLY 
EXAMPLE OF AREAS OF CONCERN, BUT IS A RECENT EXAMPLE. 

CROSS COMMUNITY DELIBERATIONS:
I support Steve's comments, but they are a bit GNSO focused, and focused on 
gTLD policy. 
As this is about Cross Community Deliberations, I would like to broaden this a 
bit to include the topic of ICANN GOVERNANCE AND BUDGET/STRAT PLAN as examples 
for cross community deliberations. 

CHANGE: 
[The BC is part of the GNSO.]
PROPOSED CHANGE: THE BC IS PART OF THE GNSO, HOWEVER, IN PARTICULAR OUR 
MEMBERS, AS BUSINESSES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT MUCH MORE THAN THE GTLD POLICY 
DEVELOPMENT AND GTLD POLICY. 
BUSINESSES ARE HIGHLY CONCERNED ABOUT SECURE, STBLE, PREDICTABLE AND RESILIENT 
OPERATION OF THE UNIQUE INDICATORS, AND OUR MEMBERS WERE ACTIVE IN THE SSR; IN 
THE FIRST ATRT1 WHERE WE WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE A CSG REP, UNLIKE THE ATRT2, 
WHICH LIMITED THE PARTICIPATION /MEMBERSHIP TO ONLY ONE FROM EACH HOUSE, THUS 
REDUCING PARTICIPATION FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE ATRT2 MEMBERSHIP.   
BUSINESSES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT ICANN GOVERNANCE ITSELF, AND TAKE SERIOUSLY OUR 
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE BOTTOM UP, CONSENSUS GUIDANCE AND INPUT TO THE BOARD 
AND SENIOR STAFF ABOUT THE BUDGET/OPERATIONAL PLAN, STRATEGIC PLAN AND 
DIRECTIONS OF ICANN.  

FURTHER EXAMINATION OF CROSS COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS AND DELIBERATIONS IS A 
WORK IN PROGRESS AND SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS SUCH.  WE DO SUPPORT THE 
IMPORTANCE OF EVOLVING SUCH MECHANISMS, HOWEVER, WE HAVE SOME CONCERN THAT THE 
PRESENT APPROACH THAT IS BEING TAKEN IS VERY STAFF DRIVEN.  

A MODEL THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED COULD BE USE OF WORKING GROUPS, FULLY 
SUPPORTED BY ICANN RESOURCES AND FUNDING, SIMILAR TO THE EXPERT GROUP WITH 
APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL STAKEHOLDER GROUPS, TO CONSIDER STRATEGIC 
AND CROSS CUTTING ISSUES TO DEVELOP A MORE BOTTOM UP DRIVEN APPROACH.  

HOWEVER, WE WILL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO REINFORCE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 
COMPOSITION OF THE ATRT REVIEW PANELS AND TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS A RETURN TO A 
MORE REPRESENTATIVE INCLUSION OF AT LEAST ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM SGS.

NEW COMMENT: 
ABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY TO FULFILL OUR RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PARTICIPATION ADN 
ENGAGEMENT:
FINALLY, THIS REPORT IS BEING DELIVERED AT A TIME WHEN THE AMOUNT OF WORK AND 
BURDENSOME DEMANDS ON THE STAKEHOLDERS IS EXTREMELY HIGH.  IT IS REGRETABLE 
THAT THE ATRT2 REPORT IS LACKING A FULL CURRENCY IN REFLECTION OF THE 
IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING A COMMUNITY/STAKEHOLDER DRIVEN APPROACH VERSUS THE 
NEW GROWTH OF A STAFF AND TOP DOWN DRIVEN APPROACH. 


ADDITION:
CHANGE: DNS THAT IS SAFE, SECURELY OPERATED, RELIABLE AND PREDICTABLE... 


Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 18, 2014, at 8:40 PM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Steve,
>  
> I think the points made in the comments about the top and bottom pressures 
> are well-stated.  With regard to the cross-community working group section, I 
> would think to add this:
>  
> An example of how top-down pressure is affecting the legitimacy of the 
> constituencies and stakeholder groups can be seen in the executive 
> appointment of cross community and expert working groups.  It is not our 
> point that the executive cannot convene such panels to help inform the 
> organization's thinking, but the form, function and output of each ought to 
> be aligned with the view of the community.  Right now, the GNSO and ccNSO 
> Councils are collaborating on just such a set of guidelines for the 
> development of meaningful policy by cross community working groups.  The 
> ATRT2 committee should endorse this effort as an effective approach to this 
> particular issue and as a general approach to others as they arise.
>  
> My two cents.
>  
> Berard
>  
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: BC comment on Accountability and Transparency 
> Review Team recommendations
> From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2/17/14 4:54 pm
> To: "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Attached is my first draft BC comment on recommendations from the second 
> Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2).  ICANN’s comment page 
> is here and the ATRT2 recommendations are here.
>  
> Initial comments close 21-Feb and reply comments close 15 March.  Today 
> begins our 14-day review period, putting us on track to submit comments by 
> 3-March.
>  
> Marilyn will likely have initial edits, but all BC members are invited to 
> REPLY ALL with edits (using TRACK CHANGES, please).
>  
> —
> Steve DelBianco
> Vice chair for policy coordination
>  
>