Draft Working Document for WG 4 “ Transparency & Accountability”
Transparency:
The At Large Community is encouraged by ICANNs efforts to achieve a high level of transparency in all its operations and to implement its relevant bylaws obligation accordingly. To any outside observer or ordinary Internet user, ICANN presents an extremely high degree of transparency and accountability, far in exceeding any similar international policy or standards body and should be commended for setting a standard for other organizations to aspire to. However, for the user participant, any party wishing to contribute to ICANN's policy development, we identify a number of areas where significant improvement is still required.
The At Large Community sees in particular a great value in the high level of transparency in ICANN meetings as it is materialized in open access to all meetings and webcasting of key sessions which allow the public at large which is not in a position to participate in person in ICANN meetings to participate on equal footing in the public forum and other discussion rounds, to intervene, ask questions and make comments.. The At Large Community welcomes also ICANNs efforts to report periodically on the ongoing efforts in the various fields of ICANN activities, including GNSO restructuring, iDN ccTLD Fast Track, new gTLDs, WHOIs and other issue of high concern for the At Large Community.
However, the At Large Community has a number of serious concerns that the principle of transparency is not fully implemented. Key concerns refer, inter alia, to
- the documentation of how input, coming from various constituencies, including the At Large community, is reflected in final policy proposals, prepared by ICANN staff and;
- the late presentation of key documents to the broader public in the various ICANN languages which reduces substantially the capacity of At Large members to understand ICANN policies and to make use of the opportunity to comment and to provide input into the bottom up policy processes;
We recommend that ICANN:
- brings more transparency into the “last mile” of the policy development process, that is in the way how the ICANN staff is dealing with the various inputs from ICANN constituencies, in particular from the At Large constituency, in developing final drafts of policy documents for consideration by the ICANN Board and;
- reconsiders its timetable for the publication of official documents, in various languages, which would allow enough time for discussion and the formulation of comments and inputs
Accountability:
The At Large Community refers to the ICANNs bylaw provisions that ICANN is accountable to the global Internet community and the public at large. It fully supports positions expressed in various ICANN documents that the interests of the public at large should have priority when in conflict with individual interests of individual ICANN constituencies and that ICANN directors have to serve primarily the interests of the public at large and not the constituencies which did send them to the Board . The At Large community also welcomes the efforts by ICANN to improve the existing accountability mechanisms via its various instruments, including the reconsideration policy, the review process, the ombudsman and other tools incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws which guarantee the implementation of accountability in the day to day operations of ICANN.
However the At Large Community has a number of concerns how accountability will be implemented and further improved in the future, in particular in a post JPA phase. The At Large Community recommends ICANN to rethink its procedures for interaction with the various stakeholders, that is the supporting organisations and advisory committees. From the point of view of the At Large Community we recommend:
- to draft special procedures for the interaction among then ICANN Board and the ALAC. Such procedures should include formal obligatory steps and mechanisms how the ICANN Board is dealing with formal advice from ALAC. Following the model of the interaction between the ICANN Board and the GAC, as it is described in the ICANN bylaws, the ALAC proposes to include a similar procedure for the interaction between ALAC and the ICANN Board in the ICANN bylaws,. Such a procedure could include an obligation for the Board to react formally to any advice from the ALAC and, in case the Board rejects an ALAC advise, to accept an invitation to enter into formal consultations to discuss the disagreement. In case such a consultations does not produce any result the ICANN Board should have the obligation to explain to the broader public why it has rejected the ALAC advice.
- In the future, post JPA period, ICANN should be in a position to sustain its public interest credentials through an improved balance between operator and business interests on the one hand and ALAC and the GAC on the other hand.
- Accordingly, the At Large Community invites the ICANN Board to reconsider the representation of the At Large Community in the Board. In the original ICANN bylaws (1998) the At Large Community got a right to send nine voting directors to the Board. Today the At Large community is represented by one non voting liaison in the Board. While the At Large Community is well aware that in the bottom up PDPs and in the day to day operation within ICANN it is very often more important to have first of all a voice and while the At Large community recognizes that it is represented in nearly all ICANN bodies with liaisons it thinks that the time is ripe – in particular after the formation of RALOs in all five ICANN regions – to reconsider the At Large representation in the ICANN Bord and to invite ALAC to send two voting directors to the Board.
Nguyen Thu Hue
as discussed during the WG 4 meeting, i agreed with the drafted text and also with the structure of how it presented.
this is also for use to engage the other ALS to discuss about the issues. a list of bullet points for easy discussion may include:
transperancy from at large perspectives:
good points:
- open access to all ICANN meeting
- web broadcast of key lessons learnt
- periodically reporting on key policy issues
- regular communication with ALAC via monthly teleconference and other tools
points for improvements:
- unclear information flow of inputs from at large to final decision
- limited time for broader comments in multiple languages
suggestions:
- make clear of steps Icann staff use inputs from alac: both use and non use
- extend time for at large comments on important issues in many languages
accountability from at large perspectives:
good points:
- Strong statement in ICANN document about its priority of being accountable to the global Internet Community
- mechanism in place: reconsideration, review process, obmusman
Points for improvement:
- indicators for M&E of how accountability be implemented
Suggestions:
- procedure of formal interaction between ICANN board and ALAC
- obligation of the board to react formally to ALAC advice
- Response on both acceptance and non acceptance of advice.
- report to the general community on the decision
- reconsider of ALAC two voting director to the board
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2009-02-24 02:58:36 GMT
Darlene Thompson
Nice comments, Thu Hue! I pretty much agree with them except that
I can't agree with the first paragraph at all. So, as you so eloquently stated, I would like to start a discussion on it. Here are my thoughts:
1. "The At Large Community is satisfied with ICANNs efforts to have a high level of transparency in all its operations and to implement its relevant bylaws obligation accordingly." I can't think of one person in NARALO that is satisfied with ICANN's efforts to have a high level of tranpartency... I encourage those from the NARALO to comment here if I am totally off base. Look at how we have to pull teeth to get any kind of financial reporting. Also, the on again, off again travel policy for the executive of each region (chairs and secretarias).
2. "The At Large Community sees in particular a great value in the high level of transparency in ICANN meetings as it is materialized in open access to all meetings..." HUH??? I have heard nothing but negative from ANYBODY who has tried to participate in an ICANN meeting remotely. They either get nothing at all or its so spotty as to be useless. The webcasts have been good for disseminating information so that little part of this sentence was good but the rest is not. The last meeting (Cairo) did not allow for remote access AT ALL. In all of the last 5 there were SERIOUS problems with remote participation and the inability of these to ask questions or participate in ANY viable way. If you don't believe me, ask Danny, Brett or Andres Piazza.
3. I think I'm OK with the last sentence.
I encourage discussion and debate on this topic!
Darlene
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2009-02-24 04:58:30 GMT
Possible Discussion issues, mentioned on last WG teleconference:
- Must have means of appeal: are the current three mechanisms (Committee of the Board on Reconsideration, Office of the Ombudsman, Independent Review Panel) adequate/working, accessible and understandable.
- Finance: revenue and expenses and budget process, is more information needed (e.g. recent investment loss.)
- More advance notice of meetings: agendas, that meetings are taking place (not an invitation, but knowledge they are happening with some means for comment by SO/AC if relevant/appropriate.)
- Policy development: explanation of how input was used (apply to the board, and also to all processes, e.g. GNSO PDP noting constituency input, ALAC advice noting how ALS input considered etc.)
- Conflict of interest policy (COI): http://www.icann.org/en/committees/coi/coi-policy-04mar99.htm dates from 1999, update and relevant to all in leadership positions.
- COI as public statement to be completed and noted by all SO/AC members.
- Enforcement of consensus policies and contracts: improve compliance. Clarity as to what to be in compliance with.
- One meeting/year oriented to interests of users, commercial and non-commercial.
- Post JPA: JPA acts as an external check on ICANN progress and process, what can replace it (external to the bottom-up process.) JPA also goal setting.
- Notion of legitimacy: legitimacy will result from transparency and accountability (three together)
- Cost issues and trade off of transparency: cost in money, and cost in volunteer time (costs of due process). Importance of tools.
- Is there money in the current budget for all the things we think important? Translation, document production (tech writer). Must be a budget item for next FY.
Adam
contributed by ajp@glocom.ac.jp on 2009-02-28 22:08:58 GMT
Comments from Saturday afternoon session:
*Transparency of the last mile: open up the staff decision process.
*Amend the bylaws to give At-Large two voting Board seats
*Require specific response to ALAC statements, justifying rejection of advice if not accepted
Staff recruitment, particularly senior staff and barrier to employment by those without work permits
Need to improve interaction between ALAC/ALS and GAC representatives of respective countries
contributed by ajp@glocom.ac.jp on 2009-02-28 22:18:29 GMT
—
More issues I heard suggested
- what plans ICANN has for making website more usable / sharing information
- icann staff work with alac to attend meetings and pro-actively push participation.
contributed by ajp@glocom.ac.jp on 2009-02-28 23:42:12 GMT
