[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