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

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Tue Nov 24 22:40:21 UTC 2015


hi Bruce, all, a few further thoughts:

On 24 November 2015 at 14:21, 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.
>

I think the work of the HRWP has been designed to achieve what you suggest,
but this isn't an area of expertise for me.


>
> .       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.
>

Incorporating the right, and developing the approach to using it, is not in
conflict with the admirable transparency vision that you have suggested.
The CCWG's deliberations in Dublin were very clear - as one of the people
who reluctantly moved to a Designator model on the basis it could meet the
group's requirements, this was one of the components of meeting those
requirements. It is not beyond ICANN's ability to make this workable, and
putting the framework in the bylaws is essential to that. I'd regard it as
very hard to recommend the ccNSO approve the proposal without this being
incorporated.


>
>
> .       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.
>

As long as this example is an example, as stated elsewhere, that's fine.


>
> 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.
>

Noted, and noting this faces a tweak as agreed at the last call.


>
> .       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.
>

Based on the discussion last night, it would have been helpful for this
Board perspective to be incorporated in the ST18 working group meetings of
which there were four leading up to the most recent CCWG call. This would
be a step away from the compromise language incorporated in the Second
Draft Proposal, though less of a step away from the compromise language
discussed yesterday....


>
>
> .       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.
>
>
This may cause problems. As noted above, the transparency and inspection
rights aren't negotiable. The bylaws change powers are also clearly a part
of this model in the sense of legal enforceability of the Empowered
Community's decision rights. It's the Budget power which isn't.

Can you confirm by the above observation the Board isn't seeking changes to
the community powers per se?

It would be helpful if you could advise in more depth what it is that
drives the Board to make this comment - that is, what are you worried about
as a group "appearing" here?


>
> .       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.
>

If this is a "no" to the carefully considered changes to the AOC specified
reviews, then it is a problem.


>
> .       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.
>
>
>
I'm at a loss to understand precisely what this means.....

best
Jordan


-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151125/0f590655/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list