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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Yes. Very helpful, Alan. Thanks. I especially note the concern regarding use of 
processes other than the regular PDP (such as an EPDP). If a public interest 
issue relevant to a policy discussion is overlooked (along with any other 
policy issue that needs to be scoped-in), that would be undesirable. However, 
my personal feeling is that, technically, the criteria of applicability of 
using an EPDP should cover this. This is provided that the public interest 
issue is identified during the discussion on which process could be used. I 
guess the question is how to take into account all the policy implications of 
even a very narrowly scoped EPDP.

On “mismanagement” and “disputes between staff and IRT”, yes…, to my 
recollection, you never suggested that. That was only my attempt at trying to 
understand how public interest issues may be problematic during implementation. 
I’m still unclear on how this could happen, but wouldn’t mind going over this 
when the ALAC submission is reviewed by the WG.

Thanks again, Alan.

Amr

On Mar 24, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 <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