<html>
<body>
I think we need to be careful with the wording of this. Although review
teams work with the best of intentions, recommendations may not always be
implementable, practical or cost-effective. The Board must have a strong
obligation to evaluate them and if it chooses not to implement (or not to
implement exactly as specified), it must have an obligation explicitly
say so, and to either propose an alternative recommendation that
accomplishes the same intent, or justify why the recommendation is not
being followed. And THAT is subject to reconsideration/review. Part of
that was already in ATRT2 Rec 11.6, but we have the opportunity to
strengthen it now.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 26/04/2015 05:30 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">To add to Jonathan's point, Avri
- I think the new language creating a positive obligation on the Board to
"approve and implement review team recommendations, including
recommendations from previous reviews." isn't just reinforcing the
status quo. If the Board fails to do this, it then goes up the
reconsideration/review thing. this is how we worked around the "what
if they just don't decide anything?" problem.<br><br>
cheers<br>
Jordan<br><br>
<br>
On 27 April 2015 at 07:29, Jonathan Zuck
<<a href="mailto:JZuck@actonline.org">JZuck@actonline.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>I'm saying that both adoption and rejection are reviewable decisions.
Inaction would be the failure to make a decision.<br><br>
<dd>Sent from my Windows Phone<br>
<hr>
<dd>From: <a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">Avri Doria</a><br>
<dd>Sent: 4/26/2015 2:41 PM<br>
<dd>To:
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] the power to enforce AOC type (6.7)
recommendations<br><br>
<dd>Hi,<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Does that help?</blockquote><br>
<dd>Apologies, but I think I remain confused. <br><br>
<dd>I understand that we still have the ultimate accountability
function.<br>
<dd>Still don't know if there is any other power.<br><br>
<dd>First, as far as I remember, we did not get the Power to force a
decision against complete inaction.<br><br>
<dd>Also I do not believe that it would be the case that there was
complete inaction. I am sure that the Board would review the
various recommendations of the AOC type review teams. Most reviews
contain many recommendations, and the Board could accept some and reject
others.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>because once the board has made a decision, we are putting in
accountability mechanisms to question that decision</blockquote><br>
<dd>Do you mean reconsideration and IRP? <br><br>
<dd>thanks<br>
<dd>avri<br><br>
<dd>On 26-Apr-15 14:03, Jonathan Zuck wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
<dd>Avri,<br><br>
<dd>I completely agree that this is new obligation and that it must find
its way into the bylaws.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>As for your other question, I think it’s not a question of giving
power to a review team but rather to the community to induce the board to
accept recommendations from a review team.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>To accomplish that, all we need to do an ensure that the board
actually considers the recommendations and makes a decision about them,
any decision because once the board has made a decision, we are putting
in accountability mechanisms to question that decision. The whole that
currently exist is in cases of complete inaction</i> on the part of the
board.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>The best analogy I think can of at the moment is the FTC. The
FTC has the ability to hold companies to their promises. Getting
companies to post privacy policies is the equivalent of getting them to
promise something at which point, they are then subject to FTC
review.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Does that help?<br><br>
<dd>Jonathan<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of
</b>Avri Doria<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Sunday, April 26, 2015 1:29 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] the pwoer to enforce AOC type (6.7)
recommendations<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Hi,<br><br>
<dd>In the draft recommendations (6.7.2):<br><br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>Require the ICANN board to approve and implement review team
recommendations, including<br>
<dd>recommendations from previous reviews.<br><br>
</dl><br><br>
<dl>
<dd>The final output of all reviews will be published for public
comment.<br>
<dd>The Board shall consider approval and begin implementation
within<br>
<dd>six months of receipt of the recommendations.<br><br>
</dl><br>
<dd>We discussed this as a putting a greater obligation onf the Board
than it currently has. But I do not understand how that is the
case. At this point, it is still up to the Board to agree or
not. <br><br>
<dd>In responding to a CWG-IANA based question from an NCSG member on how
the IANA Function Review recommendation for a RFP, if such were to
ever happen, would be respected by the ICANN Board? Couldn't they
just ignore it. <br><br>
<dd>I did not have a response and am wondering what part of the community
powers I am forgetting.<br><br>
<dd>This points to the more general question about any recommendation of
an AOC type review.<br><br>
<dd>Other than the no-confidence removal of the Board (6.6.6. got to love
the numer!), is there anything that gives the AOC-Like review
recommendations the sort of Community powers that we have discussed
having for budgets, strategy & operational plans (6.6.2) ? Is
it possible to include Board rejection of AOC type review recommendations
under the category of decision that can be overruled by members? Or
is that class of decsion restricted by statute?<br><br>
<dd>Thanks<br><br>
<dd>avri<br><br>
<br><br>
<div align="center"><br>
</div>
<dd><a href="http://www.avast.com/">
<img src="cid:7.1.0.9.2.20150426180803.08b21fa0@mcgill.ca.1" width=100 height=100 alt="Image removed by sender. Avast logo">
</a><br><br>
<dd>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br>
<dd><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a> <br><br>
<dd> </blockquote><br><br>
<br>
<hr>
<dd>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br>
<dd><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a> <br><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
</dl><br><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Jordan Carter<br><br>
Chief Executive <br>
InternetNZ</b><br><br>
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br>
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
<br>
Skype: jordancarter<br><br>
A better world through a better Internet </i><br><br>
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="ATT00001.jpg"<br>
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="ATT00001.jpg"<br>
Content-ID: <part1.03070509.08020705@acm.org><br>
X-Attachment-Id: 7bb46e66032fa506_0.0.1<br><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>