[CCWG-ACCT] comments on draft summary

[Alan Greenberg]

I tend to agree. The concept that ALL of the powers we are discussing 
are over and above what we (the SO/ACs) do in our "normal life" in 
ICANN is often forgotten. SOs recommending policy and ACs giving 
advice is a fact, but this entire accountability process is adding a 
new dimension to their existence.

Alan

At 10/11/2015 10:20 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I think one point that is missing in this discussion is that we are
>increasing the powers of all segments of the ICANN community, with the
>exception of the ICANN Board.  In that respect, if we are to point out
>that the GAC influence is increasing it must be done in the context of
>increasing the powers of all other the SO and the ALAC and with
>consideration that in relative terms the GAC is not being increased any
>more than any other SOAC.   It should be noted that not to give GAC an
>equivalent increase in its ability to participate in decisions with
>regard to ICANN the organization, not is policies, would be to decrease
>the influence of the GAC.  If the intention of the proposal is to
>decrease the relative influence of the GAC, we should be clear in
>stating that fact.
>
>avri
>
>
>On 10-Nov-15 14:26, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > BrettSchaefer
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community