[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Bringing AoC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws, v4 reflecting Paris discussion
steve at shinkuro.com
Fri Jul 17 15:16:45 UTC 2015
For the record, when the AoC was presented to the ICANN board September 2009 we raised an immediate objection to the original text of the Whois review. We got pushback that the entire text had been negotiated and it would put at risk the adoption of the Affirmation of Commitments. We have been wrestling with this “detail” for six years. There is no reason to perpetuate inappropriate text. As I had said early in the process, I think in reference to the IANA contract, it is a misperception/misunderstanding to assume that the existing text is some sort of gold standard. There is LOT of experience with the relationship between the text in both the IANA contract and the AoC document and what’s needed in practice.
We’re not trying to reduce our commitments or make major changes, but there is no reason to perpetuate non-sensical provisions and ignore the accumulated experience.
On Jul 17, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org> wrote:
> Today (17-Jul) we reviewed and revised the proposal to bring AoC Reviews into the ICANN Bylaws.
> By my notes, here are the changes we agreed today:
>> Preference for option 2 on team composition, so removed 3-May proposal and Option 1.
>> Allow ATRT to amend these reviews, too.
>> Add 1 ICANN board member to each review team under option 2. Note that our 3-May draft had a board member on each team.
>> Bruce Tonkin suggested requiring review teams to Prioritize their recommendations. We heard several objections to making that a requirement, so I added it as a suggestion: "The review team should attempt to assign priorities to its recommendations."
> Remaining challenges:
>> How to give review team access to ICANN Internal documents, while preventing disclosure/publication of information that is sensitive, confidential, or proprietary? Do we impose sanctions for unauthorized disclosure? HELP NEEDED HERE.
>> Steve Crocker recommended changing the AoC commitments for WHOIS/Directory Services. We heard some agreement with that idea, but strong cautions about attempting to drop WHOIS commitments as part of the transition. Instead, amendments to the WHOIS/Directory Services review could be recommended by the first post-transition ATRT.
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
> <2015-07-17 DRAFT FOR 2nd REPORT - AoC Reviews into Bylaws - V4.docx>_______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community