[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Rec 11

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 21:29:38 UTC 2016

On 28 Jan 2016 8:40 p.m., "Chris Disspain" <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
> Here are the current Board comments on Recommendation 11 (GAC Advice):
> 2.     The Board understands that this recommendation was not intended to
impose any new requirements for the Board to take decisions on GAC advice,
SO: I don't know how the board read the text to mean no new requirement was
recommended. I want to assume this is probably board communicating what
they expect indirectly and I hope that is the case.

and that this issue can be addressed in the Bylaws drafting notes by
indicating that the Board should not be obligated to act on all GAC advice
through a vote.

SO: Irrespective of the new requirement, I support board's reservation
stated above.

> 3.     The Board supports that ACs should be required to provide
rationale to accompany advice.  The Board understands the CCWG
recommendation to place an obligation on the Board, when taking a decision
on a piece of advice, to consider whether the Board found the rationale
sufficient.  The Board would always be in a position to indicate if
additional information is needed prior to completing consideration of any
piece of advice.  The Board does not consider this recommendation to impose
a requirement that the Board must provide a specific determination for each
piece of advice received regarding whether the Board felt the rationale was
sufficient, and urges the CCWG to clarify for Bylaws drafting that the
Board is not required to make a determination on whether every piece of
formal advice has adequate rationale.
SO: I think this makes sense as I don't see why board would need to confirm
if rationale was sufficient. I believe even at the moment, noting should
stops them from asking further clarification if an advice isn't as clear
enough. However, I hope/wish adequate bylaw text that ensures that board
gives equal attention to AC advice is put in place(by attention, may not
necessarily involve requiring a vote to reject an advice).

> 4. The Board agrees with the CCWG-Accountability’s clarification that, if
the Board takes action inconsistent with the Bylaws – even if that action
is based upon following the advice of an AC – the Board can be subject to
an IRP.  To the extent that the CCWG believes that it is important to
specifically identify this in the Bylaws, the text used should apply to all
Advisory Committees, and not solely refer to the GAC.
SO: Seem fair enough.


> Cheers,
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160128/8752d51b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list