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

Fri Apr 12 19:20:54 UTC 2019

I believe processes are important. Isn't there a clearly documented process
of sharing information and calling for comments? If the process is
available then it would be good to report with the link such that standard
procedures are followed.

Despite the criticism in CCWG on IG - i feel the issue needs to be
addressed.
ᐧ

On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 at 22:08, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> Dear Maureen,
>
> thank you for following up on this. I too was surprised about this. It is
> now the second time that the ICANN CEO publishes something on the ICANN
> Blog and invites comments to be sent directly to a non transparent address
> and outside a Public Comment request. The other occasion was the
> publication of the Charter on Government Engagement Approach.
>
> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-org-publishes-charter-on-government-engagement-approach
>
> This method was criticised by participants in the Cross Community Working
> Group on Internet Governance. I then spoke to Göran after the RALO Chairs
> Fika session and he was visibly irritated when I insisted that standard
> procedures on Public Comment periods were needed for this kind of thing. I
> asked him to reconsider opening a Public Comment and to this date, I note
> that my request on behalf of several members of the community was ignored.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
> On 12/04/2019 17:45, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
>
> 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>
> 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>
> Cc: <ccnso-council at icann.org>, Chris Disspain <chris at disspain.uk>, Nigel
> Roberts <nigel.roberts at board.icann.org>, <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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALT-Plus mailing listALT-Plus at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
>
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALT-Plus mailing list
> ALT-Plus at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
>

-- 
Nanghaka Daniel K.
Executive Director - ILICIT Africa/ Chair - Outreach and Engagement WG
(ICANN At-Large)/ former Chair - FOSSFA  / Geo4Africa Lead / Organising
Team - FOSS4G2018
Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda)
Skype: daniel.nanghaka

----------------------------------------- *"Working for Africa" *
-----------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/alt-plus/attachments/20190412/3fbc338d/attachment.html>