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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Amr,

I'm sure this will come up when the ALAC comments 
are discussed but I am happy to have a go at it here.
First, the issue is applicable during an initial 
policy process as well as what happens during the 
implementation. It is possible that it could 
exacerbated during one of the expedited policy 
process that might occur during implementation.
Of course, ALL policy issues should be addressed 
during the PD phase, but we know doesn't always 
happen. I don't think I alluded to any 
mismanagement, nor did I intend to alllude to 
disputes between staff and an IRT.
Certainly, deciding on what the PI issues are, 
are subject to differing opinions, and that is indeed the problem.
Is that any cleaer?

Alan

At 23/03/2015 09:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 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 
> > <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] New accountability issue
> > Date: March 20, 2015 at 9:22:30 PM GMT+1
> > To: CCWG Accountability 
> > <<mailto:accountability-cross-community@xxxxxxxxx>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
> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@xxxxxxxxx>Accountability-Cross-Community@xxxxxxxxx
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community