[Area 2] On ICANNs Aacountability

[Carlos Raul]

I have represented my country in the GAC for 3 years, from 2011 to 2013. I
was member of the ATRT2. Since the last ICANN meeting in LA i;m now member
of the GNSO Council (NomCom). Base on my personal observations during that
time I would like to suggest my ideas to the WS 2 to the ICANN
Accountability Cross Community Working Group.

   1. *Equal footing of stakeholders*: I think we have to rethink the
   separation of SOs and ACs. At least Users (if represented in ALAC at all)
   and Governments (GAC) deserve an equal footing with commercial interests in
   the whole policy making process, however defined (see below). The Haphazard
   Cross Community efforts are creating a lot of confusion, lack common work
   methodologies and in the end nobody knows if it is going to work (see our
   discussion on the public interest). are going to be more or less legitimate
   or interpreted in the right way by the world at large.
   2. *Equal footing in policymaking*: i think the differences between
   contracted and non-contracted parties is getting blurred with the new
   gTLDs. Particularly the representativeness of non-commercial Stakeholders,
   vis a vis ALAC and GAC remains a mystery to me. Academic accreditation does
   not seem necessarily related to the issues discussed in the IANA
   Stewardship transition and some of the newer PDPs. If there is equal
   footing as per 1 above, the GNSO houses have to be rebalanced as per above
   under 1.
   3. *Structural and/or Organizational separation* between a) Policy
   Making, b) Operations and c) Compliance functions. Lots of progress there
   with the separation of the new gTLDs under a separate arm and the higher
   visibility of the compliance function. But the clear and arms length
   separation of staff and budgets for those very different functions has to
   be based on statutory changes. This clean up of the ICANN budgetary process
   is VERY necessary.
   4. An additional oversight layer, with limited authority to validate
   technical or technical related Board decisions, if required by any affected
   party. It should have the power to approve or disprove, but not to modify
   the technical or technically related decisions of the Board. In case of
   disapproval, it has to go back the "new" PDP based on the broad and
   balanced representation suggested under 1 and 2 above.
   5. Numbering and Protocol related functions should be under entities
   that meet at least the same Accountably and Transparency standards and
   Naming functions. To the best of my knowledge not all RIRs meet those
   standards, nor can the IETF be compared to the bottom up policy development
   process of the GNSO. For legitimacy and credibility all IANA functions have
   to find stewardship under the same high standards.

Best regards

*Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez*
_________
Apartado 1571-1000
*COSTA RICA*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/attachments/20141222/ca5ced2b/attachment-0001.html>