<div dir="ltr"><div>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.</div><div><ol style="font-size:13px"><li style="margin-left:15px"><u>Equal footing of stakeholders</u>: 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.</li><li style="margin-left:15px"><u>Equal footing in policymaking</u>: 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.</li><li style="margin-left:15px"><u>Structural and/or Organizational separation</u> 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.</li><li style="margin-left:15px">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.</li><li style="margin-left:15px">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.</li></ol><div>Best regards</div></div><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-family:arial"><b style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez</font></b><div style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-size:small">_________<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Apartado 1571-1000</div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><b>COSTA RICA</b></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div></div></span></span></div></div></div>
</div>