[CCWG-ACCT] Larry's questions (was: A blog from NTIA)

[Roelof Meijer]

“Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus”

Makes me wonder if phrasing like this is already in the bylaws.

"* personal view is that board is responsible for holding ICANN mgmt and staff to account”

That is my view too

  *   we could consider cascading accountability obligations down to SOs and Acs…

We have to, and it’s not the first time this issue has been raised

Cheers,

Roelof

From: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
Date: donderdag 18 juni 2015 16:25
To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Larry's questions (was: A blog from NTIA)

Hi all, I know it's poor form to reply to emails you sent, but I thought I'd try answering some of Larry's questions, to start some conversation on list about them... answering is actually more like offering comments for conversation...

Also just a view that while it would have been helpful for NTIA to offer these as part of a public comment in time, I am sure that the U.S. congress and other public and political debates in the USA will need solid answers to all of these questions.

On 17 June 2015 at 01:22, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
I am sure Avri will post this to our group but I just wanted to share the very interesting questions Larry poses us:


In addition to the ICG transition proposal, the final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN’s accountability. Given that the draft proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability will be a major focus of the discussions next week in Argentina, I would like to offer the following questions for stakeholders to consider:

  *   The draft proposes new or modified community empowerment tools. How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions?

* would we look to SSAC to comment on the proposals?
* I have asked about the notion of stress-testing our proposed accountability changes (so far, the stress-testing has been focused on making sure the accountability solution can deal with ICANN's accountability to the community, and I do think we need to discuss how to apply the same methodology to our own proposed solutions.)
* new tools do raise new questions but that is necessary as part of the process of ending the NTIA contract.
* our proposal has to answer and resolve concerns of this sort and that's a high bar for v2 to meet



  *   The draft proposal focuses on a membership model for community empowerment. Have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed, and documented?  Has the working group designed stress tests of the various models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out?  Similarly, has the working group developed stress tests to address the potential risk of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various models? Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential unintended consequences of “operationalizing” groups that to date have been advisory in nature?

* lots of questions for the ST-WP to comment more on
* I feel like we've looked quite carefully and are continuing to look at membership, designator and "whatever it's now called" ("trust"? "Voluntary"? "bylaws"?) models, including with legal advice.


  *   The draft proposal suggests improvements to the current Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP has been criticized for its own lack of accountability. How does the proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns with the IRP?

* Becky?


  *   In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the working group consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the multistakeholder model?  Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that standard?

* this is a sort of bigger picture issue which feels almost like part of CWG-Stewardship's responsibility?


  *   The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees?

* personal view is that board is responsible for holding ICANN mgmt and staff to account
* we could consider cascading accountability obligations down to SOs and ACs...


Lots of food for thought here.


best
Jordan


All of these questions require thoughtful consideration prior to the community’s completion of the transition plan. Similar to the ICG, the Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2015
Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] A blog from NTIA
To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>


http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann-meeting-argentina

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150619/186d4a27/attachment.html>