[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] New accountability issue

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Alan,

I’m forwarding this message from the CCWG-ACCT list to help me ask a question 
regarding the issue of public interest in the discussion we’re having on the WG.

I recall you bringing this up on our last call, but can’t seem to pin-point 
where in the transcripts. I’m not sure about the context in which this was 
raised, but if I’m not mistaken, it was in the context of facing difficulties 
with public interest issues during the implementation phase.

When you have the time (I’m sure you’re busy in Istanbul), could you please 
make this clearer? I ask this with some thoughts of my own including:

Public interest issues should probably be addressed during the policy 
development phase, and not during implementation. If there is a mismanagement 
of a policy’s implementation, whether this involves public interest or not, the 
IRT should be able to address it and potentially raise the issue to the GNSO 
council if a conflict between staff and the IRT persists on the matter.
Public interest seems like a substantive issue to me, and not one primarily 
involved with designing GNSO processes. It is also very debatable, and if I 
recall correctly, when we were working on the definitions for this WG, didn’t 
we have a discussion about this and elected to not include it?

Anyway…, those are my thoughts, but would appreciate clarification. I’m 
guessing I didn’t exactly get the whole picture when you raised this issue.

Thanks.

Amr

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] New accountability issue
> Date: March 20, 2015 at 9:22:30 PM GMT+1
> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> This is NOT an issue related to the IANA transition, but in my mind is a 
> serious accountability issue.
> 
> The issue is not a new one, but has recently been raised again in the context 
> of the GNSO WG on Policy and Implementation. One of the outcomes of that WG 
> (should it be approved) is that ALL issues that impact stakeholders, 
> regardless of when the issue arises in the policy-implementation continuum, 
> must be referred to the GNSO and subject to a MS decision-making process. At 
> the present, some stakeholders believe that some similar decisions have been 
> made unilaterally by staff or the Board.
> 
> The potential accountability issue is whether the GNSO is capable of 
> addressing issues where the Public Interest may be at odds with the desired 
> of the Contracted Parties, and if not, how do we fix it.
> 
> The problem is that contracted parties have a very strong vested interest to 
> attempt to ensure outcomes that support their needs and can invest 
> significant resources in ensuring satisfactory outcomes. That is a completely 
> natural position for them to take. Those who are defending the public 
> interest tend to have few such resources. This can impact WG outcomes. 
> Moreover, ultimately, contracted parties, working together, have an effective 
> veto within the GNSO (although clearly not one they would prefer to use).
> 
> Past situations have resulted in either watered-down results which did not 
> come anywhere near meeting the public interest needs in the view of 
> non-contracted parties, or have resulted in deadlock.
> 
> Although no one is advocating the Board taking unilateral decisions in such 
> cases, it DOES have the ability to decide that the Public Interest is of 
> paramount import in any specific case.
> 
> Please note that this is not an accusation against specific contracted 
> parties or their representatives. But it does reflect a scenario that MIGHT 
> arise and where ICANN must be able to take decisions that are in the public 
> interest.
> 
> This is very closely related to the issue that we are always reminded of - 
> ICANN Directors must look at the Public Interest EVEN IF a decision is 
> counter to the wishes of the AC/SO that appointed them. How do we ensure that 
> the Policy Processes below the Board are as accountable?
> 
> Alan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community@xxxxxxxxx
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community