[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Bringing AoC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws, v4 reflecting Paris discussion
avri at acm.org
Sat Jul 18 05:10:18 UTC 2015
We have one ambiguity in documenting this decision.
You write making this part of ATRT 2016.
Others have written that it does not get done until the first ATRT of
the new cycle once the Bylaws change.
I think it should be done as part of next year's work if possible.
In any case we need to clarify the timing.
On 17-Jul-15 18:23, Jordan Carter wrote:
> 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.
> On 17 July 2015 at 17:16, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com
> <mailto: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.
> On Jul 17, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Steve DelBianco
> <sdelbianco at netchoice.org <mailto: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
>> +1.703.615.6206 <tel:%2B1.703.615.6206>
>> <2015-07-17 DRAFT FOR 2nd REPORT - AoC Reviews into Bylaws -
>> WP1 mailing list
>> WP1 at icann.org <mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org <mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (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.
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community