[CCWG-ACCT] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017

avri doria avri at apc.org
Fri Sep 8 19:32:13 UTC 2017


Hi,

My understanding was that the statement being discussed was whether they
should consider term limits.

I think this is an important difference.  And I think that strengthening
the statement into something that is easier to disagree with, is
unfortunate.

I think the act of considering the need for term limits is all that is
required.  You are right, it is not best for all.  But considering
whether to impose them or not is a good practice as it gives those who
hold positions without term limits who may see no reason for term
limits, to be challenged by those out of power who may think they are
needed. At this point there is no recommendation that all SOAC/AG/C
consider term limits so those who want them may be flat out of luck.

I suggest that we avoid change the wording of the recommendation and
that we support the recommendation that all entities consider whether
they need term limits or not.

I personally believe that yes, we should add the consideration of terms
limits as a good practice.


avri


On 08-Sep-17 09:27, Steve DelBianco wrote:
> As discussed on our SOAC team call yesterday, we are nearly finished
> with our public comment responses
> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uAjMUtnaigi5-zSMGmmIbvFNcPxGQC0cMB_a7XskQfI/edit#gid=639129231>
> and updated recommendation
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sT6SscZLT7VK2rVFOMPaiK1Qd8vlVLkm0boRX7I8ru0/edit#>
> to the CCWG.  
>
> One remaining question is whether to add an additional Good Practice
> to the 28 we already have in our report.
>
> The purpose of this email is to hear from all members of
> SOAC-Accountability as to whether our report should include this new
> proposed Good Practice:
>
>
>     *An AC/SO/Group that elects its officers should impose term limits. *
>
> Note that this proposed Good Practice would _only_ apply to
> AC/SO/Groups that have elections.  And as with all of our Good
> Practices, we describe applicability in our Executive Summary:
>
>     In Track 1 we recommend 29 Good Practices that each SO/AC/Group
>     should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and
>     an improvement over present practices.  We do not recommend that
>     implementation of these practices be required. Nor do we recommend
>     any changes to the ICANN bylaws.  We do recommend that Operational
>     Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN
>     could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in
>     the AC/SO subject to the review. 
>
> And we include this caveat on page 8:
>
>      "AC/SO/Groups are only expected to implement Good Practices to
>     the extent that these practices are applicable and an improvement
>     over present practices, in the view of AC/SO/Group participants.
>      Again, we do not recommend that implementation of these practices
>     be required by AC/SO/Groups.”
>
> Please reply to all by 11-Sep with your view on whether we should add
> Term Limits as a Good Practice.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community




More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list