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

[Paul Rosenzweig]

May I second that request?  I can certainly see arguments that lawyers will
need to address regarding the applicability of California law, but I would
have thought that recommendations from the CCWG on accountability would be
per se a definition of what community sees as "in the public interest."  On
what criteria would the Board override those?

 

Paul

 

**NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***

509 C St. NE

Washington, DC 20002

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066

 
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 

From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:52 PM
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding Board treatment of the output
of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

 

Dear Bruce,

 

Thank you for this helpful note. 

 

Could you please point us to or share with us some thoughts regarding what
the ICANN Board sees as "the public interest"?

 

Many thanks

Jordan

 

On 15 December 2014 at 12:23, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> > wrote:

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
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community




 

-- 

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive 
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>  
Skype: jordancarter

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141215/91cbbac9/attachment.html>