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

[Maureen Hilyard]

Thank you Alan and  the ALAC and ALT+ team

I have already sent a note to Katrina giving our immediate support along
with that of other SO-AC Chairs, so that she would know that she has the
support of At-Large for any urgent followup she may want to carry out
before the closing date of the informal request for public comment on the
issue.

However, having done so, we can now review how we can address this issue
formally from the ALAC. Perhaps another letter to the Board (and Goran)
about the issues that Alan raised and also to support Katrina's point about
the inappropriateness of social media being used as a means of soliciting
public response to any ICANN issue when there are already formal ICANN Org
procedures in place. Lots of issues from an end-user perspective.

I would be happy for Alan to draft something to take to the next CPWG for
discussion, before we send it away.

Maureen

On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 7:46 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> Sorry for taking so long to reply. I was largely offline yesterday.
>
> Let me give a bit of perspective on this. In my mind, the IRP panel
> selection was ill-conceived by the CCWG-Accountability. Given that it's
> problems were understaood at the time, but there was no interest in trying
> to properly address them at the time - the community involvement was felt
> to be necessary by many, no matter how unrealistic or difficult to
> implement it might be - and that was known then.
>
> Once in the Bylaws there were somewhat feeble (in my mind) attempts to
> figure out how to make it work. Then GDPR cme along consuming all of our
> focus and effort (and seemingly that of ICANN Legal and staff as well).
>
> So is it a wonder that ICANN and Goran are feeling a bit of frustration
> and feel that we need to act, and act quickly? The Bylaws requiring us to
> select an IRP Standing Panel have been in place for over 2 1/2 years and we
> are nowhere close to having one or even understanding how we will go about
> it.
>
> All of that being true, writing a blog post, effectively hiding it, and
> setting an unrealistic deadline to address questions some of which have
> been on the table (with few answers) for over three years is either
> intentionally deceptive of an indication of less intelligence and
> understanding that I gave Goran credit for.
>
> Please reply quickly and strongly supporting Katrina's letter.
>
> Alan
>
> At 12/04/2019 11:45 AM, 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 welll-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 list
> ALT-Plus at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/alt-plus/attachments/20190413/8dd3a01d/attachment.html>