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

[Seun Ojedeji]

I also join in the chorus of support.

However considering it's not the first time this is happening (as Olivier
indicated) I wonder what role board is playing (or has played) to address
this.

Cheers!

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 11:45 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
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
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC-Members mailing list
> ALAC-Members at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-members
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/alt-plus/attachments/20190413/2463b548/attachment-0001.html>