[CCWG-ACCT] the power to enforce AOC type (6.7) recommendations

Sun Apr 26 22:12:41 UTC 2015

I think we need to be careful with the wording of this. Although 
review teams work with the best of intentions, recommendations may 
not always be implementable, practical or cost-effective. The Board 
must have a strong obligation to evaluate them and if it chooses not 
to implement (or not to implement exactly as specified), it must have 
an obligation explicitly say so, and to either propose an alternative 
recommendation that accomplishes the same intent, or justify why the 
recommendation is not being followed. And THAT is subject to 
reconsideration/review. Part of that was already in ATRT2 Rec 11.6, 
but we have the opportunity to strengthen it now.

Alan

At 26/04/2015 05:30 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>To add to Jonathan's point, Avri - I think the new language creating 
>a positive obligation on the Board to "approve and implement review 
>team recommendations, including recommendations from previous 
>reviews." isn't just reinforcing the status quo. If the Board fails 
>to do this, it then goes up the reconsideration/review thing. this 
>is how we worked around the "what if they just don't decide anything?" problem.
>
>cheers
>Jordan
>
>
>On 27 April 2015 at 07:29, Jonathan Zuck 
><<mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>JZuck at actonline.org> wrote:
>I'm saying that both adoption and rejection are reviewable 
>decisions. Inaction would be the failure to make a decision.
>
>Sent from my Windows Phone
>
>----------
>From: <mailto:avri at acm.org>Avri Doria
>Sent: 4/26/2015 2:41 PM
>To: 
><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] the power to enforce AOC type (6.7) recommendations
>
>Hi,
>
>>Does that help?
>
>Apologies, but I think I remain confused.
>
>I understand that we still have the ultimate accountability function.
>Still don't know if there is any other power.
>
>First, as far as I remember, we did not get the Power to force a 
>decision against complete inaction.
>
>Also I do not believe that it would be the case that there was 
>complete inaction.  I am sure that the Board would review the 
>various recommendations of the AOC type review teams.  Most reviews 
>contain many recommendations, and the Board could accept some and 
>reject others.
>
>>because once the board has made a decision, we are putting in 
>>accountability mechanisms to question that decision
>
>Do you mean reconsideration and IRP?
>
>thanks
>avri
>
>On 26-Apr-15 14:03, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
>>
>>Avri,
>>
>>I completely agree that this is new obligation and that it must 
>>find its way into the bylaws.
>>
>>
>>
>>As for your other question, I think it's not a question of giving 
>>power to a review team but rather to the community to induce the 
>>board to accept recommendations from a review team.
>>
>>
>>
>>To accomplish that, all we need to do an ensure that the board 
>>actually considers the recommendations and makes a decision about 
>>them, any decision because once the board has made a decision, we 
>>are putting in accountability mechanisms to question that decision. 
>>The whole that currently exist is in cases of complete inaction on 
>>the part of the board.
>>
>>
>>
>>The best analogy I think can of at the moment is the FTC.  The FTC 
>>has the ability to hold companies to their promises. Getting 
>>companies to post privacy policies is the equivalent of getting 
>>them to promise something at which point, they are then subject to FTC review.
>>
>>
>>
>>Does that help?
>>
>>Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: 
>><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
>>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf 
>>Of Avri Doria
>>Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 1:29 PM
>>To: 
>><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] the pwoer to enforce AOC type (6.7) recommendations
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>In the draft recommendations (6.7.2):
>>
>>
>>Require the ICANN board to approve and implement review team 
>>recommendations, including
>>recommendations from previous reviews.
>>
>>
>>
>>The final output of all reviews will be published for public comment.
>>The Board shall consider approval and begin implementation within
>>six months of receipt of the recommendations.
>>
>>
>>We discussed this as a putting a greater obligation onf the Board 
>>than it currently has.  But I do not understand how that is the 
>>case.  At this point, it is still up to the Board to agree or not.
>>
>>In responding to a CWG-IANA based question from an NCSG member on 
>>how the IANA Function Review recommendation  for a RFP, if such 
>>were to ever happen, would be respected by the ICANN 
>>Board?  Couldn't they just ignore it.
>>
>>I did not have a response and am wondering what part of the 
>>community powers I am forgetting.
>>
>>This points to the more general question about any recommendation 
>>of an AOC type review.
>>
>>Other than the no-confidence removal of the Board (6.6.6. got to 
>>love the numer!), is there anything that gives the AOC-Like review 
>>recommendations the sort of Community powers that we have discussed 
>>having for budgets, strategy & operational plans (6.6.2) ?  Is it 
>>possible to include Board rejection of AOC type review 
>>recommendations under the category of decision that can be 
>>overruled by members?  Or is that class of decsion restricted by statute?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>avri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>><http://www.avast.com/>
>>Image removed by sender. Avast logo
>>
>>
>>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>><http://www.avast.com/>www.avast.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
><http://www.avast.com/>www.avast.com
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>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)
><mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>Skype: jordancarter
>
>A better world through a better Internet
>
>Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="ATT00001.jpg"
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="ATT00001.jpg"
>Content-ID: <part1.03070509.08020705 at acm.org>
>X-Attachment-Id: 7bb46e66032fa506_0.0.1
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20150426/cc850c7c/attachment.html>