[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Bringing AoC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws, v4 reflecting Paris discussion

[Jordan Carter]

hi Steve

The reason to perpetuate this language is the fact we are all under the gun
to get WS1 sorted.

So: the view today in the room was to put this on the agenda for the ATRT
that will run next year, and to grant ATRTs the power to recommend changes
to existing reviews.

Hope this makes sense.

cheers
Jordan


On 17 July 2015 at 17:16, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> 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
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and
> http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.703.615.6206
>
>
>    <2015-07-17 DRAFT FOR 2nd REPORT - AoC Reviews into Bylaws - V4.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>


-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150717/9039e32f/attachment.html>