[CCWG-ACCT] Follow up from the last CCWG call
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Apr 7 16:41:18 UTC 2015
The circular nature of the RR process is a significant concern. It is
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> Thanks, Izumi for joining this conversation on reconsideration request.
> But we aren't adding it as a "new" issue to WS1 however, it has been in WS1
> since the Frankfurt meeting in January.
> There are a couple additional issues that we need to bring in to the
> discussion on Reconsideration Request reform, however.
> One issue has been brought up about the problem of the circular nature of
> the RR process at this point - that it is basically asking the board to
> decide if it was right before. There was some suggestion that we need to
> look at this circular aspect of the issue as well, and possibly find a
> mechanism that provides for a different set of eyes making the first cut
> when at looking at the merits of Request. I'd be interested to hear what
> others think of this circular aspect of the RR process.
> Thank you,
> On Apr 7, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > I'd like to follow up from the last call for reconsideration being list
> as WS1 requirement.
> > As you can see from the chat record of CCWG ACCT Session #18 we
> requested for more time to consider it since it is the first time we see
> this and and this was agreed by the chair.
> > The current note from CCWG ACCT Session #18 call says "CONCLUSION:
> Reconsideration process is WS1. " May I suggest this to be revised as this
> is not consistent with what was agreed?
> > As a feedback on reconsideration process, I support we consider this as
> a group, move fast on drafting requirements, identify ways to address it.
> > At the sametime I have some reservations on making a decision at this
> point for this mechanims to be in WS1.
> > We have at this point identified as WS1 :
> > - Enhancing ICANN's Mission and Core Values
> > - Develop Fundamental Bylaw
> > - Strengthening the existing independent review process, and
> > - Mechanisms for community empowerment which includes "recall the ICANN
> Board of Directors", "approve or prevent changes to the ICANN Bylaws,
> Mission and Core Values", "reject Board decisions on Strategic Plan and
> > It looks like we already have several core powers to ensure
> accountability of key decisions.
> > I support the group to continue working on this, progress as much as
> possible, but I would like to see an overall picture of accountability
> mechanism based on what we have identifies already, before adding more as
> > As a away forward, I would like to suggest that we continue working on
> this but to visit whether this should be in WS1 after we go through
> developing mechanisms for core requirements we have already identified
> powers for, have legal reviews, conduct stress test, rather than to make a
> decision at this point.
> > I would be intersted to hear if anyone have other thoughts on why we
> have to make a decision at this point that this needs to be in WS1.
> > Best Regards,
> > Izumi Okutani
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community