[CCWG-ACCT] comments on draft summary

[Roelof Meijer]

I could not agree more, Becky

Best,

Roelof




On 11-11-15 00:20, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of avri at acm.org> 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 Robin¹s 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_* ICANN¹s
>> 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_*ICANN¹s 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
>