[ALT-Plus] Fwd: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel

Fri Apr 12 18:07:08 UTC 2019

Agree completely. You KNOW I’m a process guy, especially when it comes to ICANN.ORG!

From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, April 12, 2019 at 9:10 AM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
Cc: ALAC Members <ALAC-members at icann.org>, ALT-Plus <alt-plus at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ALT-Plus] Fwd: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel

Thanks Jonathan.

I am just asking for a quick OK from the ALAC and ALT+ to send out this urgent message on their behalf and that they support it. It is also notification to the team about how confusing it could get if we have to trawl through social media to find out what we should be commenting on. Strange how ICANN Org is not following the correct process. A governance issue?

M

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 5:55 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
Are you asking for support or do you need a draft? I certainly believe you (ALAC) should support this request.
Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>

________________________________
From: ALT-Plus <alt-plus-bounces at icann.org<mailto:alt-plus-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 8:45:32 AM
To: ALAC Members; ALT-Plus
Cc: Katrina Sataki
Subject: [ALT-Plus] Fwd: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel

Hi all

I would like to respond urgently to Katrina and others listed in the email below in support of her request for all public comment requests to be delivered to the community via the formal channels. Goran requested feedback for input into the IRP Standing Panel on March 9 in his blog, yet there has been no formally published request and the comment period is supposed to end on 15 April. The lack of formal notification has meant that this important matter has not been brought to the attention of our CPWG system. Due to the proposed closing date for public comment this an urgent situation and Id like to send something out in 24 hours, to give ALAC support for Katrina's concerns.

Maureen

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Katrina Sataki <katrina at nic.lv<mailto:katrina at nic.lv>>
Date: Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:10 PM
Subject: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel
To: Goran Marby <goran.marby at icann.org<mailto:goran.marby at icann.org>>
Cc: <ccnso-council at icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council at icann.org>>, Chris Disspain <chris at disspain.uk<mailto:chris at disspain.uk>>, Nigel Roberts <nigel.roberts at board.icann.org<mailto:nigel.roberts at board.icann.org>>, <so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org<mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org>>

Dear Göran:

In your blog post of 9 March 2019, you invited community inputs on the process for the selection of a standing panel to hear Independent Review Process (IRP) complaints. You included a series of questions, with a deadline for responses by 15 April 2019:

-        Qualifications for Standing Panelists: Are there specific qualifications that should be included? If so, what are they? Anything disqualifying? Should the SOs and ACs recommend qualifications? And if so, how?

-        Identifying a Slate of Well-Qualified Panelists: We’ve heard concerns from some members of the ICANN community as to whether the broader community has the appropriate experience and skill for this selection work, and have suggested the possibility that ICANN instead contract with experts to perform this vetting process. Should the community rely on expertise to help vet and recommend a final slate for the standing panel?

-        Board Approval of Panel Slate – Further Questions: After there is a slate of well-qualified applicants, the Board must confirm the panel. If the Board has questions that might impact its confirmation, to whom should those questions be addressed? If experts are used to develop the slate, should the experts, the SOs and ACs, or some combination thereof be part of that conversation?

-        Future Selections: Should the process being designed today be reviewed for effectiveness after the first slating is completed, prior to making it standard operating procedure for future selection rounds?

The IRP, as you correctly stated, is an accountability mechanism arising from the ICANN Bylaws. ICANN Board and staff decisions may be reviewed for breaches of ICANN’s own policies, core values or because decisions have been made on the basis of incorrect information.

Matters of high importance that fall within scope include disputes involving the rights of the Empowered Community, enforcement of ICANN’s contractual rights with respect to the IANA Naming Function Contract, and claims regarding PTI service complaints by direct customers of the IANA naming functions (that are not resolved through mediation). The appointment of appropriately qualified and independent panellists who will be making these review decision is therefore a high concern to us.
Taking into account that:
1)    the blog post was published right before ICANN64, when most volunteers are travelling or busy preparing for the meeting,
2)    no corresponding public comments request has been published on the ICANN website,
3)    no information about the request was published in ICANN Community Leadership Digest (the questions were first mentioned only on 11 April),
and to ensure that:
1)    all community members are aware of the opportunity to provide input,
2)    everyone has sufficient time to discuss the issue and submit their considerations,
3)    the process is transparent and all comments are published in due time,
we would like to encourage you to re-launch the call for community inputs in accordance with the established procedures.

Furthermore, we request that only one process for seeking community feedback, i.e. ICANN public comments procedure, is used in the future. While a blog post may remain to be a good tool for reminders, and senior staff commentary may encourage engagement and participation, they are no substitute for due process.

Yours sincerely,

Katrina Sataki
On behalf of the ccNSO Council
_______________________________________________
SO-AC-SG-CLeaders mailing list
SO-AC-SG-CLeaders at icann.org<mailto:SO-AC-SG-CLeaders at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/alt-plus/attachments/20190412/a3f2ad1a/attachment-0001.html>