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

[avri doria]

Hi,

Yes, one implements a program. A group considering and recording the
consideration is an action/activity that would need to be implemented.

The suggestion here is that formal consideration by a group of term
limits is a good practice.

It is not a question of considering implementation, it is about
implementing consideration.

Avri


On 08-Sep-17 15:46, Steve DelBianco wrote:
> Avri — we are recommending Good Practices that the group believes are
> worth implementing (if applicable).  
>
> None of the other 28 Good Practices suggest to “consider” something to
> do.   All are suggestive that implementation is a good practice, and
> all our recommendations imply that AC/SO/Groups should therefore
> “consider" implementation. 
>
> Steve
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf
> of avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:avri at apc.org>>
> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM
> To: "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] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by
> 11-Sep-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
>     <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
>