[IOT] Status of ICANN staff in IOT
avri at acm.org
Thu Dec 6 22:33:48 UTC 2018
This matches my recall and understanding.
I would add that I would think we would better spend our time trying to
resolve the issue, option 2, than we would trying to remove people we
disagree with from the IOT.
On 06-Dec-18 14:53, Burr, Becky via IOT wrote:
> Respectfully to all, and without opining on the substance of the
> repose issue, I am concerned that we may be imposing general
> assumptions about the role of staff in policy development on the work
> of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team without adequate
> consideration. The role of Org in this work - which is not traditional
> policy development - may be fundamentally different. According to the
> Bylaws, "An IRP Implementation Oversight Team shall be established in
> consultation with the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
> and comprised of members of the global Internet community." As I
> recall, when we discussed this (now a long time ago) we collectively
> determined that it was in fact appropriate for someone from ICANN
> Legal to be an active part of the discussion. If we are going to
> revisit that, perhaps we should do that in a more formal way, in
> consultation with SOs and ACs, as specified in the bylaws.
> On 12/6/18, 12:17 PM, "IOT on behalf of Arasteh"
> <iot-bounces at icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All
> I fully support the legitimate comments and request made by Malcolm
> In addition to the criteria he described I add the following
> Staff and legal people only intervene if and only if a clarification
> sought by formal members of the group
> Thus sort of a smoky interaction was and is being observe in other
> At some other meeting the staff even jumped ahead of the people in the
> queue and d’Irak without the floor being given to them
> Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
> > On 6 Dec 2018, at 13:47, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
> > > > Dear David,
> > > I write to confirm for the written record my request as raised in our
> > last meeting.
> > > When this group was formed, you took the extraordinary step of
> > ICANN staff and external counsel as full members of this group:
> > > - they are listed as full participants on the group membership page
> > - they are included in quorum counts
> > - they are invited to speak on all issues on an equal basis: that is,
> > not merely to describe the practical effects of matters proposed, but
> > also to opine on the balance of values
> > - they are included in consensus calls
> > > In the Board resolution in Barcelona adopting the Interim
> > Rules, the Board resolved to urge this group to come to a prompt
> > conclusion on final Supplementary Rules of Procedure.
> > > During the Open Forum session, I offered the Board my opinion that we
> > would have completed our work earlier had we not been so split, as a
> > result of the divergent views of the team from ICANN Legal and Jones
> > Day. I asked whether it was normal for ICANN staff and agents to engage
> > in community processes like this one as full participants, and whether
> > there was guidance available.
> > > Göran answered my question on behalf of the Board. He stated very
> > clearly and firmly that staff "are not members of the community" and
> > participate as staff support, not a co-participants. He appeared to me
> > to be angry that I was even suggesting that staff would overstep such
> > bounds, and that he had to defend them from such an accusation which he
> > gave every impression as regarding as an unfair accusation of
> > impropriety. He was plainly unaware of your decision.
> > > In the light of this response, I request that we revisit the
> > classification of ICANN staff and Jones Day.
> > > In my view, it was never proper to regard ICANN Legal and Jones Day as
> > co-equal participants in this group. The matter under discussion is the
> > procedures that apply in a core process for holding ICANN to account:
> > ICANN is plainly irredeemably conflicted.
> > > Moreover, the conflict goes beyond the institutional to the
> personal. An
> > IRP case can only be brought on the basis that ICANN has acted
> > inconsistently with the Bylaws. Usually, ICANN will have taken the
> > advice of its lawyers before acting in a manner that might give rise to
> > such a claim. Accordingly, an IRP case will quite commonly be a direct
> > challenge to the advice that Samantha, Elizabeth and the team have
> > previously given, personally. It is quite wrong to involve them in
> > directly in the decision-making as to how such a challenge can be
> > brought. This is not to impugn their professional integrity: any lawyer
> > would recognise this as an irreconcilable conflict of interests and
> > obligations. Your decision places them in an impossible and untenable
> > position, that fundamentally compromises the legitimacy of this group's
> > output.
> > > Now that Göran has confirmed that staff should not be regarded as
> > members of the community for the purpose of participation in community
> > processes, I ask that their status be reclassified as staff support,
> > with the following consequences:
> > > - they will not be counted in quorum counts
> > - they will not be included in consensus calls
> > - they will be permitted to attend meetings, and their input sought on
> > factual matters, such as how procedures operate, where that assists the
> > group, but their opinion will be not be sought as to the balance of
> > expedience.
> > > Kind Regards,
> > > Malcolm Hutty.
> > > > -- > Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
> > Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
> > London Internet Exchange |
> > > London Internet Exchange Ltd
> > Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ
> > > Company Registered in England No. 3137929
> > Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> > _______________________________________________
> > IOT mailing list
> > IOT at icann.org
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
More information about the IOT