[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary

[Schaefer, Brett]

Bernard,

Nice job overall. However, I have a few comments. First a few narrow textual matters than need addressing:

Pg 7 – “reinforcing adherence to Human Rights protocols” I thought we were discussing respect for human rights, not adherence. And where did the protocols come in? We should revert to the agreed HR text.
Pg 8 – same issue
Pg 10 – The Sole Designator does not provide the “maximum legal set of powers to the community”, it provides more limited legal powers than membership

A major problem is that there is no reference to the explicit decision to grant right of inspection to the SD or individual SOs and ACs nor the agreement to incorporate a new independent appeal of DIDP decisions for SOs/ACs and individuals.

Second, the draft does not address the problem I have raised about the assumptions on SO/AC participation in community mechanism and the thresholds for exercising powers. The assumption is that GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, ALAC, and GAC will all participate. But if one or more of these entities decides not to participate (note, I do not mean abstaining, I means not participating at all a la SSAC)  or cannot reach consensus on participating for some length of time, we could only have 4 or fewer participating entities.

If there are only 4 participating SOs/ACs, it would require community unanimity to exercise community powers to (1) Block a proposed Operating Plan/Strategic Plan/Budget, (2) Approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation, (5) Recall the entire board of directors, and (7) Reconsider/reject board decisions relating to reviews of IANA functions, including trigger of PTI separation. If there are only 3 participating SOs/ACs, the community would not be able to exercise those powers at all.

That is why I suggested getting confirmation of intent to participate – acknowledging that this would not be an endorsement of the CCWG proposal – from the ACs and SOs so that we can accurately project for the model. I also think that we need to explore thresholds for various levels of participation for that reason.

I also concur with Jordan that the escalation should not apply to fundamental bylaws.

Best,

Brett


From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary

All,

Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.

Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.

Bernard Turcotte
Staff Support

for the co-chairs.

________________________________
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151110/e1890279/attachment-0001.html>