[CCWG-ACCT] Expanding the GAC-oriented review in the AoC Accountability & Transparency Review

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Steve,
I have no particular problem with your text.
Pls consider my suggestion for status quo as now being supportzed by
several GAC HAVE SUPPORTED that.
One colleagues mentioned that " NO CHANGE" is not an option.
That claim is not true.
For years many entities including US Governmentinsisted that " NO CHANGE"
is a valid  OPTION .There has been agreed so since 1995 .
I have no option but to push for that alternative.
We are happy with current situation which hasworked well which seems more
neutral than Stress Test 18 which is detrimental to the GAC since one
single Government could block the GAC cionsensus thus GAC could never ever
acheive any consensus if that single Govermnet insist on its opposition to
the emerging consensus.
St 18 IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PROCESS ,IN PARTICULAR, ON THE ISSUE RELATING
TO PUBLIC Policy.
I can not / would like to further explain the detrimental consequencwe of
ST18.
Please kindly include this alternative now siupported by several GAC
members as a workable option in your REC.11
Regards
Kavouss


2016-01-29 19:16 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:

> Sounds good to me.
> Jorge
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
> Am 29.01.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>:
>
> Good ideas. I would support these minor amendments.
> --MM
>
> I suggested one way to improve the community’s review of GAC-oriented
> activities lies in the AoC’s Accountability and Transparency Review (known
> as ATRT).
>
> Here is the suggested edit [in red and brackets] to the AoC’s ATRT Review
> (Annex 9<
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%209%20-%20AOC%20reviews%20-%20First%20reading%20conclusions.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1453310811000&api=v2>
> para 85):
>
> (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board
> [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for
> improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the
> public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS
> If this is acceptable to CCWG, we should amend Annex 9 para 85 as above.
>  It might also be helpful to note the GAC-oriented review in Annex 10<
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%2010%20-%20SOAC%20Accountability%20-%201st%20reading%20conclusions.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1453451637000&api=v2>,
> under para 3 for Work Stream 1. As in:
>
> “The periodic review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency required
> under the Affirmation of Commitments is being incorporated into ICANN
> bylaws as part of Work Stream 1.  In Recommendation 9 and Annex 9, the
> Accountability and Transparency Review will include this among issues that
> merit attention in the review:
>
>  (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the
> Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations
> for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on
> the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160129/5cc694ff/attachment.html>