[CCWG-Accountability] Regarding Board treatment of the output of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Bruce,
Thank you very much for the message.
That is the area of our disagreement.
In my view and the view of my country, the  long term accountability  of
ICANN is a fundamental and crucial matter  and should not be subject to the
Board VETO
I therefore have serious difficulties with that
Regards
Kavouss

2014-12-15 0:23 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>:
>
> Hello Kavouss,
>
> >>  In addition to what I informed you before is that , Under WS 1 they
> already agreed to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Board
> Resolution adopted in LA I.E. ALLOWING THE BOARD TO VETO the content of the
> accountability whereas in case of ICG we have clearly mentioned that the
> Board should not modify the ICG work and send it as it was received to NTIA
> .However, should the Board  has any comment, they may send it separately to
> NTIA
> In case of CWG and WS1 of CCWG, it is not the case.
>
> From my understanding there are two separate but related activities.
>
> The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is developing a
> proposal to send to NTIA for the IANA transition.    This proposal could
> incorporate the output of this Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
> ICANN Accountability.   The ICANN Board's liaison on the ICG - Kuo Wei Wu -
> has conveyed to that group that the Board will send the report onto the
> NTIA without making any changes.   The Board will send an accompanying
> letter which will either endorse the report, or it will express concerns
> that will already have been shared with the ICG through the various
> opportunities for public comment and dialogue.
>
> This Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is
> developing recommendations for improvements of ICANN's accountability.
>  These improvements can be made irrespective of whether the NTIA chooses to
> change its role with respect to the IANA function.   The Board of ICANN is
> committed to making continuous improvements in its accountability
> mechanisms.    The ICANN bylaws are clear on how the Board will approve
> policy recommendations from the supporting organisations (GNSO, ASO and
> ccNSO), but there is no explicit material in the bylaws for how the Board
> will process recommendations directly from a cross-community working
> group.   The Board resolution passed in Los Angeles (
> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d)
> was intended to set clear expectations for how the recommendations would be
> treated.        The assumption is that the Board will approve the
> recommendations from this group, and implement those recommendations.   If
> the Board feels that it would not be in the public interest to implement a
> particular recommendation it has set out a process for working with the
> Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability to resolve
> the matter.   The Board will not make any changes to a recommendation or
> report from this group.  It is up to the CCWG to make or change any of its
> recommendations.
>
> Separately, I expect that the NTIA could make the ICANN Board's approval
> and implementation of improved accountability mechanisms proposed by this
> group as a pre-condition to any transition.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> ICANN Board Liaison to the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
> ICANN Accountability
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141215/2a77350e/attachment.html>