[CCWG-ACCT] Hi, Re: the power to enforce AOC type (6.7) recommendations

Matthew Shears mshears at cdt.org
Mon Apr 27 15:44:09 UTC 2015


While I like Jordan's wording I have to say that I have the same 
reservations as Avri and support the inclusion of a community process to 
understand and bridge any issues that arise.

Matthew

On 4/27/2015 3:42 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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 /
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150427/34b9a5fc/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/20150427/34b9a5fc/attachment.jpe>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list