[CCWG-ACCT] comments on draft summary

[Schaefer, Brett]

I agree with all of Robin’s points below.

In particular, the point about the GAC needs clarity and correction. Pedro, Steve, Jorge and others were actually discussing significant changes to the GAC advisory role yesterday. Even if those changes are not included in the proposal and the GAC advisory role remains unchanged, we are proposing allowing GAC to exercise significant additional powers and influence through participation in the community mechanism.  This needs to be made clear.

Best,

Brett


________________________________
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/>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:06 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] comments on draft summary

In addition to the comments on the text provided by Brett and Tatiana, with which I separately voiced my agreement, I'd offer the following comments on the draft summary just released:

I.  p.4-5 "The CCWG-Accountability is not recommending that any changes or alterations be made to ... the advisory role of the GAC..."
This statement is simply false.  We ARE in fact proposing a big change - in that we are offering a decision making role to GAC on the community powers.  I understand the desire to make the claim otherwise, but we are simply misleading the public to say that at the beginning of the report no changes to GAC's advisory role are recommended, but in the details to come out later, we learn we are providing GAC a decision making role on key issues.  We should be honest and admit that is what we are doing and provide the rationale for it (if we believe it is worth doing).  But simply to claim we aren't proposing a change in GAC's advisory role, when we are in fact proposing a major change of GAC's role to decision making is shamefully misleading on our part.


II.  p. 18 and 20 - The process can only be used once for removing an individual director.
We need to specify at what stage does that "once" count.  I think the right place for that "once" to count is at the stage of community forum deliberations.  I don't think we are saying there can only be a single petition (stage 1) to remove an individual board member because that could be filed with little merit and go no where, and then the community would lose its opportunity to use that power when a legitimate need to exercise it comes along.  It could even be used to "game" the process, by intentionally filing bogus petitions to eliminate the power in a legitimate case.


III.  p.34 on reconsideration process.
Current wording of draft, which is unclear what is meant:
    * Focusing on having the ICANN Ombudsman performing the initial assessments of Reconsideration Requests in relation to ICANN’s Legal Department.
Proposed change to clarify what is meant (red text):
   * Focusing on having the ICANN Ombudsman performing the initial assessments of Reconsideration Requests instead of ICANN’s Legal Department.

Thanks,
Robin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151110/b75d9e6f/attachment.html>