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

[Matthew Shears]

+ 1

On 18/01/2016 20:00, Robin Gross wrote:
> I agree that we need to remove the “every effort” language, which is 
> indeed a loophole..  A rationale should be provided by the AC. 
>  Period.  Next issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>> On Jan 18, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Mathieu,
>>
>> That recommendation ("every effort") is inadequate and frankly, 
>> bizarre.  Under what circumstances could an AC make "every effort" 
>> and still fail to provide a rationale?  If an AC makes "every effort" 
>> to develop a rationale and still fails, what does that tell us about 
>> the recommendation?  That no rational support can be found for it?  
>> That the AC can agree on the result but not the rationale?  That the 
>> AC would rather not state the rationale?
>>
>> For those who say that the GAC already offers rationales for their 
>> recommendations -- if those rationales were considered satisfactory, 
>> this issue would not have been raised in the first place.  If 
>> necessary, we can go back to specific items of advice, and the 
>> rationales or lack thereof; but I don't know that we have the time to 
>> engage in such an exercise.  For one, I recall that in the .africa 
>> IRP concerns were raised about the lack of a sufficiently-stated 
>> rationale.  If the GAC is looking for greater parity with GNSO PDP 
>> policy recommendations, the documentation accompanying those 
>> recommendations should serve as a guide.
>>
>> It is heartening to hear that the GAC is already working on improving 
>> their communication the rationales for their advice.  As such, we all 
>> seem to be moving in the same direction.
>>
>> With that in mind, there should be no real issue with removing the 
>> squishy "every effort" loophole and stating an unqualified 
>> requirement for a rationale for all AC advice.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Steve DelBianco 
>> <sdelbianco at netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     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 R/ecommendation 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160118/148189af/attachment-0001.html>