[CCWG-ACCT] Hi, Re: the power to enforce AOC type (6.7) recommendations
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Mon Apr 27 14:42:41 UTC 2015
Hi,
Thanks for these suggestions. I think it offers a good path tto
resolving the issue
But, personally I do no think that it goes far enough. Just having the
Board give it reasons for rejection is not sufficient. Those reasons
could be specious, indicate a misunderstanding of the recommendation or
be wrong about implementation means and methods. I think that if they
are going to reject, they need to not only give their resons, but need
to initiate a community process to deal with the issue, whatever it may
be. Otherwise, it might sit and fester for another 5 years.
avri
On 27-Apr-15 03:25, Jordan Carter wrote:
> hi Avri, all
>
> Avri: the proposal was in fact to change this, by adding the following
> words in the bylaw that would guide all of these reviews, as follows:
>
> "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."
>
> That was how there would be a "reviewable" point that the other
> mechanisms for holding the board to account would be able to react off
> - the "we won't decide anything so nothing will be reviewable" risk
> would be removed because then they wouldn't have been acting.
>
> It seems to me though that we actually should preserve the current
> approach a little more closely, while still preserving the obligation
> to make a decision.
>
> Therefore (and I'd appreciate eyes on this from Steve, Matthew, Fiona
> etc - the team who helped develop this) - how would this look:
>
> Replacing the text in the bullet pointed list at the top of 6.7.2 -
> this is the part that explains what we are trying to achieve.
>
> CURRENT: "Require the ICANN board to approve and implement review team
> recommendations, including recommendations from previous reviews."
>
> *PROPOSED*: "Require the ICANN board to consider review team
> recommendations, including recommendations from previous reviews, and
> make a positive decision to approve and implement such recommendations
> or, if it has reasons to not do so, to set out its reasons."
>
> Replacing the text in the last box of the proposed bylaw that would
> govern all these AOC style reviews:
>
> CURRENT: "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."
>
> *PROPOSED*: "The final output of all reviews will be published for
> public comment. The Board shall consider the recommendations and the
> public comments, and within six months of receipt of the
> recommendations will either approve and begin implementation, or
> explain the reasons in each case where there is a recommendation it
> wishes to defer or not implement.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> cheers
> Jordan
>
> On 27 April 2015 at 14:59, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Ok, at this point I no longer think I am confused. Thanks for the
> elucidations.
>
> My current impression is that we have not changed anything with
> respect to AOC type review recommendations, They will essentially
> remain the way it they are now. The improvement is that the same
> reconsideration and IRP measures will have now, will be
> improved. And of course there is the new non-confidence measure
> at the end of the road.
>
> While strengthening the redress measures we are not doing anything
> specific to strengthen the uptake of AOC type review
> recommendations. If that is what we have decided, I am ok with
> it, as long as we do not claim that we have added anything to the
> approval of reports more than we have added to anything else. We
> probably should remove the line that says
>>
>> Require the ICANN board to approve and implement review team
>> recommendations, including
>> recommendations from previous reviews.
>>
> Since that is not the case as far as I can tell. What will
> continue to happen is that the review teams will submit the
> report, there will be a public comment period, and then the Board
> will decide what it wants to do with the recommendations. And if
> the community does not like it, they can, assuming they have
> standing, can request reconsideration, CEP and IRP.
>
> avri
>
> On 26-Apr-15 17:30, 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 <JZuck at actonline.org
>> <mailto: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: Avri Doria <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>> Sent: 4/26/2015 2:41 PM
>> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto: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:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>> <mailto: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:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Image removed by sender. Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>> software.
>>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>> software.
>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jordan Carter
>>
>> Chief Executive
>> *InternetNZ*
>>
>> 04 495 2118 <tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649
>> <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob)
>> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>> Skype: jordancarter
>>
>> /A better world through a better Internet /
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 04 495 2118 <tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649
> <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> /A better world through a better Internet /
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150427/408c6cf3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150427/408c6cf3/attachment.jpe>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list