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

Sun Apr 26 22:41:58 UTC 2015

Yes, I understood the intention. My suggestion is that we not word it 
saying that the Board has an obligation to IMPLEMENT but to fairly 
and properly evaluate.

Alan

At 26/04/2015 06:26 PM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
>I think that's exactly the intention, Alan. The board simply has to 
>make a formal decision. That's it. At that point, the community has 
>a pretty high bar to contest that decision but at least they are 
>empowered to do so.
>
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 6:13 PM
>To: Jordan Carter; Jonathan Zuck
>Cc: avri at acm.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] the power to enforce AOC type (6.7) recommendations
>
>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: 
><<mailto:part1.03070509.08020705 at acm.org>part1.03070509.08020705 at acm.org>
>X-Attachment-Id: 7bb46e66032fa506_0.0.1
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150426/9cda4347/attachment.html>