[Ws2-so_ac] Updated draft 1.3 of our report, for our 2-March call

Thu Mar 2 00:10:49 UTC 2017

Thank you, Farzaneh.

One more thing to consider on our upcoming call: we need an Executive Summary for our draft report.   Attached and below is my first draft for your consideration:

DRAFT Executive summary for SOAC-Accountability report

The SO/AC Accountability project for Work Stream 2 had its genesis at an early stage of the CCWG-Accountability track, when SO/AC representatives insisted on new powers to hold the ICANN corporation accountable to the global internet community.  ICANN board members and staff then asked, “What about SO/AC accountability?“  And as one of our independent experts asked, “Who watches the watchers?”  Those questions led to a creation of a Work Stream 2 project to review and recommend improvements to accountability, transparency, and participation within ICANN SOs and ACs.

This draft report reflects several months of research and deliberation, starting with exploration of to whom the ICANN ACs and SOs are accountable.   On that question, our working group achieved quick consensus: each AC and SO is accountable to the segment of the global internet community that each AC/SO was designated to represent in the ICANN Bylaws.

This conclusion was the basis for Track 1 of our work: reviewing accountability, transparency, and participation with respect to the designated community of each SO/AC and Subgroup.  We were keen to examine the extent to which SO/AC/Subgroups were reaching out to, and open to, members of their designated community who were not yet participating.   In Track 1 we recommend 21 “best practices” that should be considered by each SO/AC/Subgroup, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices.

In Track 2, we considered the suggestion for a “Mutual Accountability Roundtable,” originally described as a concept where “multiple actors are accountable to each other”.   That concept clashed with the fundamental consensus that ICANN SOs and ACs are only accountable to the designated community they were created to serve and represent.  On this basis, we recommend that a Mutual Accountability Roundtable not be formally implemented by ICANN.

Track 3 was where we assessed whether the new Independent Review Process (IRP) should also become a tool to challenge AC and SO activities.  On this question, we conclude that while the IRP could be made applicable by amending bylaws significantly, the IRP should not be made applicable to SO & AC activities, because it is complex and 
expensive, and there are easier alternative ways to challenge an AC or SO action or inaction.

We look forward to community response to our draft report. 

From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 3:59 PM
To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
Cc: "ws2-so_ac at icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac at icann.org>" <ws2-so_ac at icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac at icann.org>>, Brenda Brewer <mssi-secretariat at icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat at icann.org>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: Updated draft 1.3 of our report, for our 2-March call

Thank you Steve.

I have added 3  more recommendations on the Accountability and regarding Updates to SO/AC/Subgroup Policies and Procedures and inserted them in the doc. We can discuss them during the call.

There are two overall suggestions that I am putting out there for the group to discuss and if the group agrees I can insert them in the document after the meeting or discard them:

- SO/AC of the year with regards to accountability

This was my attempt to make an inspirational recommendation. The SO/AC of the year does not create a negative fierce competition between the SOs and ACs and can be a good excuse to look at the accountability mechanisms we have in place. There might be downsides to it which surpass the positive values it brings. But we can at least discuss it.

- Annual Report on accountability mechanisms

 SO and ACs provide an annual report on what they have done during the year to enhance their accountability and where they might have fallen short and what they did to overcome it.

we can discuss these two recommendations plus what I have added to the document (attached) during our meeting.

Best

Farzaneh

Farzaneh

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>> wrote:
Thanks for the reviewing that many of you have already done.  (not so much over last 4 days, however …)

In the attached docs/PDF for version 1.3, dated 28-Feb-2017:

We added previously provided responses from the RSSAC.

Added a mention of the Bylaws required independent review of AC/Sos other than the GAC.  (page 3)

Added a placeholder for Executive Summary

Here are ways you can continue to suggest edits:

1. Reply all with an email offering comments.

2. Mark-up the attached Word Doc Draft 1.3 (use track changes, please).

3. Suggest edits or comments on the Google Doc Draft 1.3 at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WppuLbVxfrRBx09hyDVYwj_yeyW78M7esiSv9InmK8U/edit?usp=sharing

—Steve, Cheryl, and Farzi

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-so_ac/attachments/20170302/6f7789ac/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Exec summary for SOAC report.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 114049 bytes
Desc: Exec summary for SOAC report.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-so_ac/attachments/20170302/6f7789ac/ExecsummaryforSOACreport-0001.docx>