[CCWG-ACCT] Update on Board discussions on the CCWG Update

[Barrack Otieno]

Many thanks for the comprehensive feedback Bruce.

Best Regards
On Nov 24, 2015 4:21 AM, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> As noted last week,  the Board has been considering the CCWG Update on
> Progress Made In and After ICANN54 in Dublin published on 15 Nov 2015.
>
> The Board is preparing for the Public Comment period on the Third Draft
> Proposal, and intends to submit its comments on the Third Draft Proposal by
> mid-December.
>
> The Board thought it may be useful to share some initial comments based on
> the information in the CCWG Update.
>
> For ease of reference, the page number in the Update Document has been
> included for each item below.
>
> .       Human Rights (pages 25-26)
>
> The Board is committed to upholding human rights as appropriate within its
> limited Mission and scope of responsibilities.  We appreciate the
> community's interest in reflecting human rights in the ICANN Bylaws, but we
> remain concerned that the placement of such language into the Bylaws
> requires full consideration of the impact of that language across all of
> ICANN's activities.  We note that a potential approach is for a group to
> develop a Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Steam 2.  It is
> important that this topic has comprehensive community discussion, including
> impact on policy development and identification of how those developing
> policy recommendations should consider human rights within their work, as
> well as any implications such as on ccTLD re-delegations.   Any final
> formulation of human rights must not extend ICANN's limited mission and
> scope of responsibilities.
>
> .       Inspection Rights and Transparency (page 12)
>
> The Board remains concerned about the insertion of inspection rights
> premised on the fact that they would have been available under a member
> structure.  The Board has already agreed that the issues of transparency,
> including a review of the DIDP and assessment of what additional
> information (such as financial information) should be made publicly
> available, is an item for further work.  In the Board's view, prior to the
> development of an inspection right, consideration should be given to what
> sort of information is expected to be requested, for what purpose and by
> whom.  Further, to address the concerns over increased financial
> transparency, the Board will be proposing a methodology during the upcoming
> public comment period through which an independent audit can be initiated,
> and has instructed staff to start considering how additional financial
> transparency can be achieved.
>
>
> .       Removal of the Board (individual/entire) (pages 21-23)
>
> The Board believes that the rationale for the removal of the entire board
> or an individual Board member must be clearly set out, for example, through
> reference to a cause for removal that could be set out in a pre-service
> letter.
>
> Additionally, the Board strongly believes the threshold for the removal of
> the entire board should not go below a total of four SOs and ACs in support
> of removal.
>
>
> .       Board Consideration of GAC advice (page 34)
>
> The Board will continue to monitor the discussions.  We note that any
> solution should include a provision that, in the event of the rejection of
> GAC advice, the Board is only required to enter into a formal consultation
> process where the GAC advice is consensus advice based on the current
> definition within the GAC's Operating Procedures (which relies on the UN
> definition of consensus).   The Board values receipt of consensus advice as
> reflected in the current GAC Operating Procedures.   Since the first ATRT,
> there has been a lot of effort made to clarify what "GAC Advice" means and
> does not mean within GAC Communiqués.   Care should be taken not to
> introduce language into the Bylaws that reduces that clarity and returns
> the Board to a position of having to negotiate among various positions in
> its consultation processes.
>
>
> .       Sole Designator Model (page 11)
>
> The Board supports the Sole Designator model with the understanding that
> limited powers of appointment, removal and enforcement are maintained as
> the guiding principles for this model.
>
>
> .       AoC Reviews and Implementation Factors (page 31)
>
> The Board appreciates the work to incorporate the AOC reviews into the
> Bylaws and reiterates as a principle that operational/administrative
> details not be inserted into the Bylaws, in favor of defined standards for
> such reviews that can be changed (with community participation) through
> processes that do not require Bylaws changes.
>
>
> .       Community Decision-Making Power (page 12)
>
> The Board believes it is important that the Community Decision Making
> Power has appropriate thresholds that are defined in ways that reflect a
> community decision, and are flexible enough to allow entrance (or exit) of
> existing or new SOs or ACs.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151124/cecf7262/attachment-0001.html>