[CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading)

[Steve DelBianco]

Mathieu —  Regarding formal advice from any Advisory Committee (AC), many commenters reiterated that a rationale should be a requirement for advice to be considered by the board.   (BC, NPOC, Google, USCIB, RySG, Valideus, the US Chamber, RrSG, NCUC, I2C, Intel, IPC)

It’s not enough to require that each AC "will make every effort”.




From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
Date: Monday, January 18, 2016 at 3:10 AM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>, Mike Chartier <mike.s.chartier at intel.com<mailto:mike.s.chartier at intel.com>>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading)

Mike,

Good catch indeed. Precisely the point of our first reading exercise.

So we will add this to recommendation 11 agenda item tomorrow.

I will note that the current annex includes a related recommendation :

·         Insert a mention for all ACs: “The AC will make every effort to ensure that the advice provided is clear and supported by a rationale.”
Best,
Mathieu

De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Greg Shatan
Envoyé : lundi 18 janvier 2016 05:30
À : Chartier, Mike S
Cc : accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading)

Mike,

Good point and good catch.  This should not have been overlooked.

Greg

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier at intel.com<mailto:mike.s.chartier at intel.com>> wrote:

I think this is another illustration of how we need to be careful in documenting the process for handling comments (other than the Boards). For Recommendation 11 several commenters offered the proposal to add a requirement for GAC advice to be accompanied by a rationale. Given the general acceptance of proposals for rationales in other areas, I would have thought it would have at least been given a note in the prep document.

Look forward to discussing on Tues.


From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 12:01 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading)

Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs

In preparation for your Recommendation 11 – GAC Advice (first reading) discussion scheduled for your call #78 - Tuesday, 19 January 2016 (12:00 – 15:00 UTC) - please find attached the material to review.
Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in advance of the call.

Thank you

Mathieu, Thomas, León

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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/20160118/188f7455/attachment-0001.html>