[CCWG-ACCT] New accountability issue

[Carlos Raul]

Dear Mark,

Regarding early engagement in the PDP. Process (scoping phase) the GAC put
it in the Singapore communique and the GNSO r century passed a motion in
this direction. We can start doing it on a trial basis for the next 3
consecutive PDPs.

Cheers
Carlos Raúl

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:57 Mark Carvell <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>
wrote:

> Alan
>
> Quick question: does early GAC engagement in PDPs, i.e. joint GAC-GNSO
> working which will start to happen soon, help here in heading off conflict
> with the priorities of contracted parties ?
>
> Mark
>
> On 20 March 2015 at 20:22, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Carvell
> Global Internet Governance Policy
> Department for Culture, Media and Sport
> mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
>  _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150323/92745ea6/attachment.html>