[CCWG-ACCT] Follow up from the last CCWG call
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Wed Apr 8 15:37:12 UTC 2015
Sure Robin, I totally support considering those issues and to have this included in the public comments.
Thank you infact for the work you are doing in this short time frame.
I see some additional posts on this and I trust we will be making good progress. I suppose what I would like to confirm is whether to make it a must at this point to have a complete, finalised solution on reconsideration for submssion to the NTIA.
Given we have some reasonable progress on this issue, with assurance that remaining open issues will be addressed with other mechanisms to be inplace which would strengthen ICANN's accountability, we could give it some flexbilities to incorporate what will then has been worked on until that point, even if it may not necessarily be the perfectly agreed solution in all details. I would like to have a chance to revisit and consider this at the point when we are closer to the target date, depending on the progress.
On 2015/04/08 1:28, Robin Gross 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 reconsideratiSure Robin, I totally support considering those issues and I'm good to have this included in the public comments.
Thank you infact for all the work you are doing in this short time frame.
I trust we will be making good progress and I suppose what I would like to confirm is whether we have to make a it must to have a complete, finalised solution for submssion to the NTIA.
Alternative could be, given we have some reasonable progress on this issue with assurance remaining open issues will be addressed as with other mechanisms to be place which would strengthen ICANN's accountability, we give it some flexbilities to incorporate what has been worked until on that point and not necessarily wait for the perfectly agreed solution. I would like to have a chance to revisit and consider this at the point when we are close the the target date, depending on the progress.
Izumion 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 budget"
>> 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 WS1.
>> 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
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community