[CCWG-ACCT] Where do we stand?

Malcolm Hutty malcolm at linx.net
Tue Oct 13 09:35:44 UTC 2015



> On 13 Oct 2015, at 01:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> 
> We have significant concerns in this area and have said that a number of times. You will find ATRT2 recommendations which are aimed at making the GNSO decision making more representative and, we have said it in all of our comments on the Policy and Implementation WG and in the more recent instance, as formal ALAC Advice to the Board. However, at the moment, the GNSO only makes recommendations and the Board has the freedom to reject them and remand them back to the GNSO if there is a strong belief within the Board that the public interest is not being met or if there is a belief that for whatever reason the recommendations do not sufficiently balance the needs and desires of the various stakeholders. 

Noted. 

> That is the backstop function that the Board, and no other part of ICANN, plays and it is for that reason that the ALAC and At-Large has not been a fan of the absolute ability of the community to over-rule the Board in the current accountability proposals.

Question: when you say "it is for that reason", do you mean that you think this is a good model that should also be followed in the separate case of accountability concern, or do you believe that our proposal somehow interferes with the Board's ability to remit or reject PDP policy proposals submitted to it for ratification?

If the latter, please could you also identify the mechanism by which such interference would occur, because I can see nothing (unless it be the somewhat fantastical idea that the entire community - including numbers, GAC, ALAC - would unite to sack the Board over a disagreement on a particular PDP). 


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list