[Chapter-delegates] [REQUEST FOR COMMENTS] ICANN Questions re: Accountability and Transparency

Bill Graham graham at isoc.org
Tue Jun 15 12:32:58 PDT 2010


Dear Chapter Delegates,

As you may know, the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team has posted a series of questions to the ICANN Community to assist them in their Review.  I have reproduced them in the body of this message, along with some comments and questions (look for >> before the text) that I have as I think about what would be an appropriate ISOC response.  

As a general point, I believe that the ISOC organizational response should avoid getting down to the level of specifics in most cases.  I think it would be a more effective strategy for us to offer helpful but general comments, along the lines of the ones we made to the US government during their consultations on the JPA last year.  You can find those on our web site at <http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/ISOC-NOI-comments.pdf>.

I would encourage you, or others in your chapters, who have specific examples to send those comments directly into the ICANN consultation website <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#atrt.

I would appreciate having your help to develop the broader ISOC response.  The deadline for comments is 1 July, and I apologize for getting these to you somewhat late.  I would need to have your responses to me BEFORE JUNE 27, so I will have time to draft a document for posting to the ICANN site.

best regards

Bill
========================
Affirmation of Commitments
Accountability and Transparency Review Team
Questions for the ICANN Community

In the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust  mechanisms for public input, accountability and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of  its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders. 

The AoC Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) is in the process of analyzing stakeholder and community input that has been submitted on these topics prior to the AoC (i.e.,  comments on Improving Institutional Confidence, submissions to the NTIA NOI on expiration of the  JPA, etc.).  However, the ATRT would also like to understand if there are new inputs or changes in stakeholder views since the establishment of the AoC.  With that context in mind, please provide responses to the following questions:

1. Do you think ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders?  Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN did not act in an accountable manner?  If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe ICANN’s actions were not taken in an accountable manner.  

>>  I think ICANN *should* be accountable to all stakeholders.  The ISOC response should reiterate the importance of this accountability to any specific stakeholder group being balanced against the need to be a responsible steward of the public good.

2. Do , including the Ombudsman, the Board  reconsideration procedure and the Independent Review Panel provide meaningful  accountability and, if not, how could they be improved? 

>> Practically, I think it is too early to say for the full procedure.  The IRP process has only been tried once, in the case of ICM Registry and the <.xxx>  We won’t know until after Brussels whether the steps work.

>> The idea of having a strong Ombudsman is a good one.  Some claim the position in ICANN is not strong enough, however.  I could not personally provide examples, but an ISOC response could state that we believe it is important that the Ombudsman be seen to be able to make a difference.

3.  Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN did not act in a transparent manner.  If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe  were not taken in a transparent manner.   how could they be improved?  

>> I do not think ISOC has any experience with a specific example.  If there are any, please let me know.

4. What is your general assessment of ICANN's commitment to the interests of global Internet users?  Can you provide a specific example(s) when ICANN did not act in the interests of global Internet users?  If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and in a manner consistent with the  interests of global Internet users.

>> This is a key question, referring back to our inputs to the US Government.  Do you have examples you would provide where ICANN has ultimately failed to act in the interests of global Internet users?  Do you have other comments to suggest?

5. What is your assessment of the ICANN Board of Directors’ governance with respect to the following factors:

§  ongoing evaluation of Board performance,  

§  the Board selection process,

§  the extent to which Board composition meets ICANN’s present and future needs , and

§  whether an appeal mechanism for Board decisions is needed?

 >> I suggest that ISOC should not support ongoing evaluation of Board performance as an aspect of organizational learning.  As to the Board selection process, I suggest that we recommend that more consideration be given to identifying people who are well experienced in one or more of the stakeholder groups, and who have an appropriate stature to be Board members.  We should also recommend that, once selected, there be a good Board education process, provided by 3rd party experts, to help new Board members understand their roles and responsibilities, to ensure they are able to carry them out appropriately.

6. What is your assessment of the role of the GAC and its interaction with the Board? How do you view the role of the GAC within the overall ICANN process?

§  What is your assessment of the interaction between the GAC and the Board?

§  Should the GAC be viewed as the body best placed to advise the Board on what constitutes the "public interest" regarding the coordination of the DNS?  

>>  My assessment is that the GAC-Board interaction could be improved by developing and updating a joint work plan.  I believe the Board should treat the GAC as any other Advisory Committee, which means taking their advice into account and demonstrating how they have done so; or if not, by stating clearly why not.  Do you agree?

>> The question of whether government representatives or the GAC is “best placed” to advise on the public interest, I suggest that we say they have _a_ role, but should not be assumed to be the _only_ way of getting advice on the public interest.  It is not true that all governments speak primarily in the interest of their public, so some checks and balances with the gNSO and ALAC, for example, can help.  Would you agree?

7. Are additional steps needed to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS?  If so, what specific steps would you recommend?

>> As noted above, I believe a rolling jointly-agreed work plan and greater clarity would be desirable.  Do you agree?  Do you have additional suggestions?

8. What is your assessment of the processes by which ICANN receives public input?  What is your assessment on how ICANN receives input of English-speaking and non‐English speaking communities?  ? Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN did not adequately receive public input from English or non‐English speakers?  If so, please provide specific taken without adequate public input.

>> I would appreciate hearing your advice on this.  My impression is that the processes’ chief flaw is with the number, frequency, and level of detail of the consultations.  These are all excessive, and result in consultation fatigue.  I suggest that ISOC could recommend fewer and more strategic public consultations, accompanied by greater use of the ACs and SOs and Board.  If this route is taken, a robust and low-cost reconsideration process is needed to catch cases where the public might have more than expected interest.

9.  Does ICANN provide adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof?  Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN did not provide adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof?  If so, please provide specific information as to were taken without adequate explanation of decisions taken and the accompanying rationale.  

>> I will look for examples of this, such as, for instance, the cursory treatment given to ISOC and other advice in the recent  report on consultations regarding the draft proposal on “Affirmation reviews requirements and implementation processes.”  In that case ISOC and other advice was only partially summarized, and that in a selective manner.

10. What is your assessment of the extent to which ICANN’s decisions are embraced, supported and accepted by the public and the Internet community?  Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN decisions were not embraced, supported and accepted by the  public and the Internet community?  If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe ICANN’s actions were taken without adequate support and acceptance by the public and the Internet community.

>> I can only provide comments based on what I have heard.  I believe ISOC might be better to not comment, and leave it to others who have been directly affected to comment.  Do you agree?

11. What is your assessment of the policy development process in ICANN with regard to:

§  facilitating enhanced cross-community deliberations, and

§  effective and timely policy development

Can you identify a specific example(s) when the policy making process in ICANN did not facilitate cross-community deliberations or result in effective and timely policy  development?  If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe the policy making process in ICANN did not facilitate cross-community deliberations or result in effective and timely policy development.

>> In our comments to the US government, we said that ICANN needs to improve in this area.  I recommend we reiterate why this is important.  I would appreciate it if you could briefly provide me with examples, if you believe there was not enough cross-community discussion, or that the PDP was not effective and timely.

========================
Bill Graham
Global Strategic Engagement
The Internet Society
graham at isoc.org


More information about the Chapter-delegates mailing list