[CCWG-ACCT] Follow up from the last CCWG call
jacob at bigroom.ca
Wed Apr 8 17:23:47 UTC 2015
I was surprised by how deep the proposed amendments to the reconsideration
process are. Has there been deep discussion about this? From what I can
tell from these notes it is going to be more complex and in depth than the
IRP process, which doesn't seem to make and sense.
Also, from a gTLD perspective, we know that in future any new gTLD that
isn't decided by auction will go through the full accountability process.
We need to take a holistic look at the end to end process and stress test
it rather than testing individual bits. The devil will be in the gaps.
If these amendments go through one would expect almost every community
decision to be subjected to a reconsideration request process, because why
not? That doesn't equate to an increase in accountability imo, just an
increase in legal fees.
Further comments below:
- Issue of standing: there was a thought to amend who has proper standing
to file reconsideration request i.e. widen its scope and include any party
that is impacted by ICANN's decision or inaction.
*What is the standard for this and how could it be enforced? *
- Standard of review: Amend standard to include reexamination of underline
merits of arguments/decisions and broaden type of decisions that can be
reexamined; amend when Board Governance Committee may dismiss a request;
clarify that a frivolous claim amounts to a cost that would extraordinary
in nature; word changes (actual to notice etc);
*What's the difference between the RR and IRP then? Won't this bog down the
board if they start to face many RRs? *
- Composition: Less reliance on legal department to guide Board Governance
Committee on its recommendations and recommend more Board members
engagement early on in decision amend rules so that Board governance
committee cannot make final decisions without fuller Board briefing and
discussion of issues; call for more transparency in decision-making
*So RR is to become a full time job for board members? That sounds fun. *
- Precedential value: Ability to challenge precedential value of previous
decisions without reopening old cases.
*What? Why? *
- Accessibility: Extending time deadline for filing reconsideration request
to 60 days from when requestor learns decision.
*The RR already takes 4-6 months. There is no certainty on when the BGC
meets and when minutes will be published. Are we going to end up with an RR
that is more in depth and lengthy than the IRP, and through which all ICANN
decisions must funnel? *
- Implementation: Follow-up process regarding implementation of the
*What is this? *
- Process concerns: Briefing materials sent to Board should be provided,
subject to confidentiality; final decisions should be issued sooner;
criteria for urgent requests should be broadened.
*Few will avail themselves of urgent requests. The IRP currently has an
expedited process via the ICDR but no one is using it. The core process
should be quick in and of itself. *
Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc.
On 8 April 2015 at 08:37, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> 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,
> > Robin
> > 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
> >> 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
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community