ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

CCAOI's submission to Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1)

  • To: <comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: CCAOI's submission to Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
  • From: "Amrita CCAOI" <amritachoudhury@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 16:55:42 +0530

Dear CCWG Accountability Chairs,


At the outset we wish to thank the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on
enhancing ICANN Accountability for giving us the opportunity to submit our
comments on the recommendations of the Second Draft Report on ICANN
Accountability, work stream 1.


Please find enclosed a copy of our comments on the draft report.


Thanking you and looking forward to favorable consideration of suggestions
in the interest of growth of internet in the country. 



Yours very truly, 

for CCAOI 



Amrita Choudhury 







CCAOI's comments on 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1) of CCWG Accountability



CCAOI is grateful for getting an opportunity to present its views on the
second draft report (work stream1) for enhancing ICANN Accountability.


We applaud the efforts being made by the CCWG Accountability group to draft
the accountability mechanism of ICANN. 


While substantial work has been done, we believe that more work needs to be
done to make it acceptable to global communities. 


Few areas where the CCWG teams needs to focus and rework on have been shared


Improve ICANN Accountability to the global Community.


While the objective of CCWG was to make ICANN accountable to the global
community including communities who normally do not participate in ICANN,
the current proposal reduces ICANN's external accountability, concentrating
instead on making ICANN accountable only to the specific chartering
organizations involved in developing the accountability proposal. We
therefore believe CCWG needs to refocus on the objectives and detail the
work which needs to be done to achieve the objectives. 


Resolve critical issues before IANA Transition (Work Stream 1)


Though quite a few critical issues such as jurisdiction, establishing
procedures for the enhanced Independent Review Process; details on defining
modalities of the ICANN Community Forum, etc. have been conceptually
described in work stream 1,there operational detailing is being deferred to
work stream 2. We are of the opinion that issues which are vital should be
detailed or resolved in Work Stream 1 itself, so that the community can
decide whether or not to support the changes.


Clearly define Terms 


The definition of the term "the empowered community" is unclear as there is
no definition on who constitute the community, whether they are all Internet
users or representatives" of the community, in the form of the SOs and ACs
has not been defined. This needs to be clarified.







Detail Processes for better transparency


The draft lacks details on many aspects. For example, with respect to the
Community Forum, who will be the members, how it will operate;   how it will
be convened; what outcomes it may arrive at etc. are still unclear.


The proposed Membership Model needs further detailing such as the issue on
how members would arrive at decision. Also the changing role of advisory
committees and the extent  to which groups may be gaining power
disproportionately to other AC's or SO's are worth considering. Also, to
ensure fair representation, the membership model needs to finalize the
number of members from each SO and AC and their voting ratios.


The Independent Review Process (IPR) needs to be refined. Moreover further
information what ICANN would fund for IRPs needs to be shared.


The current proposal is unclear on the board responsibility to resolve
community issues. Also the report does not describe a process with clear
guidelines and thresholds for the boards mediator or panel to determine
whether complaints are spurious repetitive or anti competitive. 

Moreover, there is no avenue to expedite or dismiss complaints early in
process. The timelines are vague, non binding or have been extended. For
example there is a broadened disclosure process and a 6 months
reconsideration process. Moreover the proposed mechanism is not end to end


Simplify Processes


The IANA Functions Review process is quite complicated. For example in the
current model, the process to remove IANA from ICANN involves several steps
and involvement of seven different communities. Out of this two communities
would have to be created and the process requires super majority votes from
the two main supporting organizations, twice. Apart from that, the ICANN
board has a say in this process too. 











Attachment: CCAOI submission to CCWG on 2nd draft Proposal on WS1 Recommendations.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy