<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
Thanks for these suggestions. I think it offers a good path tto
resolving the issue<br>
<br>
But, personally I do no think that it goes far enough. Just having
the Board give it reasons for rejection is not sufficient. Those
reasons could be specious, indicate a misunderstanding of the
recommendation or be wrong about implementation means and methods.
I think that if they are going to reject, they need to not only give
their resons, but need to initiate a community process to deal with
the issue, whatever it may be. Otherwise, it might sit and fester
for another 5 years.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27-Apr-15 03:25, Jordan Carter
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK2bTy9oG+SJoH9e2mntqidAs+QRsCosOC+MTTXt2Bk9SQRCpg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">hi Avri, all
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Avri: the proposal was in fact to change this, by adding
the following words in the bylaw that would guide all of these
reviews, as follows:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">"<span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Source Sans
Pro';font-size:15px;white-space:pre-wrap">The final output
of all reviews will be published for public comment. The
Board shall consider approval and begin implementation
within six months of receipt of the recommendations.</span>"</span></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">That was how there would be a
"reviewable" point that the other mechanisms for holding the
board to account would be able to react off - the "we won't
decide anything so nothing will be reviewable" risk would be
removed because then they wouldn't have been acting.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">It seems to me though that we actually
should preserve the current approach a little more closely,
while still preserving the obligation to make a decision.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Therefore (and I'd appreciate eyes on
this from Steve, Matthew, Fiona etc - the team who helped
develop this) - how would this look:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Replacing the text in the bullet
pointed list at the top of 6.7.2 - this is the part that
explains what we are trying to achieve.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">CURRENT: "<span
id="docs-internal-guid-c3c5bdb1-f9c0-d561-902e-1fbd81f8bb93"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:'Source Sans
Pro';color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Require
the ICANN board to approve and implement review team
recommendations, including recommendations from previous
reviews.</span></span>"</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><b>PROPOSED</b>: "Require the ICANN
board to consider review team recommendations, including
recommendations from previous reviews, and make a positive
decision to approve and implement such recommendations or, if
it has reasons to not do so, to set out its reasons."</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Replacing the text in the last box of
the proposed bylaw that would govern all these AOC style
reviews:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">CURRENT: "<span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Source Sans
Pro';font-size:15px;white-space:pre-wrap">The final output
of all reviews will be published for public comment. The
Board shall consider approval and begin implementation
within six months of receipt of the recommendations.</span>"</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><b>PROPOSED</b>: "The final output of
all reviews will be published for public comment. The Board
shall consider the recommendations and the public comments,
and within six months of receipt of the recommendations will
either approve and begin implementation, or explain the
reasons in each case where there is a recommendation it wishes
to defer or not implement.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Thoughts?</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">cheers</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Jordan</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 27 April 2015 at 14:59, Avri Doria
<span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033"> Hi,<br>
<br>
Ok, at this point I no longer think I am confused.
Thanks for the elucidations.<br>
<br>
My current impression is that we have not changed
anything with respect to AOC type review
recommendations, They will essentially remain the way
it they are now. The improvement is that the same
reconsideration and IRP measures will have now, will
be improved. And of course there is the new
non-confidence measure at the end of the road.<br>
<br>
While strengthening the redress measures we are not
doing anything specific to strengthen the uptake of AOC
type review recommendations. If that is what we have
decided, I am ok with it, as long as we do not claim
that we have added anything to the approval of reports
more than we have added to anything else. We probably
should remove the line that says<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Require the ICANN board to
approve and implement review team recommendations,
including<br>
recommendations from previous reviews.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Since that is not the case as far as I can tell. What
will continue to happen is that the review teams will
submit the report, there will be a public comment
period, and then the Board will decide what it wants to
do with the recommendations. And if the community does
not like it, they can, assuming they have standing, can
request reconsideration, CEP and IRP. <br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div>On 26-Apr-15 17:30, Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">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.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>cheers</div>
<div>Jordan</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 27 April 2015 at 07:29,
Jonathan Zuck <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:JZuck@actonline.org"
target="_blank">JZuck@actonline.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>
<div
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I'm
saying that both adoption and rejection
are reviewable decisions. Inaction would
be the failure to make a decision.<br>
<br>
Sent from my Windows Phone</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<hr> <span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;font-weight:bold">From:
</span><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org"
target="_blank">Avri Doria</a></span><br>
<span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;font-weight:bold">Sent:
</span><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">4/26/2015
2:41 PM</span><br>
<span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;font-weight:bold">To:
</span><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></span><br>
<span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;font-weight:bold">Subject:
</span><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Re:
[CCWG-ACCT] the power to enforce AOC type
(6.7) recommendations</span><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi,<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Does
that help?</span></blockquote>
<br>
Apologies, but I think I remain
confused. <br>
<br>
I understand that we still have the
ultimate accountability function.<br>
Still don't know if there is any other
power.<br>
<br>
First, as far as I remember, we did not
get the Power to force a decision
against complete inaction.<br>
<br>
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"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">because
once the board has made a decision,
we are putting in accountability
mechanisms to question that decision</span></blockquote>
<br>
Do you mean reconsideration and IRP? <br>
<br>
thanks<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div>On 26-Apr-15 14:03, Jonathan Zuck
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Avri,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I
completely agree that this is
new obligation and that it must
find its way into the bylaws.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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 <i>inaction</i> on the
part of the board.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Does
that help?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Jonathan</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-style:solid
none
none;border-top-color:rgb(225,225,225);border-top-width:1pt;padding:3pt
0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Avri
Doria<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, April
26, 2015 1:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT]
the pwoer to enforce AOC
type (6.7) recommendations</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<br>
<br>
In the draft recommendations
(6.7.2):<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Require the
ICANN board to approve and
implement review team
recommendations, including<br>
recommendations from previous
reviews.</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">The final
output of all reviews will be
published for public comment.<br>
The Board shall consider
approval and begin
implementation within<br>
six months of receipt of the
recommendations.</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><br>
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>
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>
I did not have a response and am
wondering what part of the
community powers I am forgetting.<br>
<br>
This points to the more general
question about any recommendation
of an AOC type review.<br>
<br>
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>
Thanks<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr style="color:rgb(144,144,144)"
align="center" noshade="noshade"
size="1" width="99%"> </div>
<table
style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt
0in 6pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/"
target="_blank"><span
style="border:1pt
solid
windowtext;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img
src="cid:part8.09000203.03070008@acm.org" alt="Image removed by sender.
Avast logo"
border="0"
height="100"
width="100"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0.75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(61,77,90)">This
email has been checked
for viruses by Avast
antivirus software. <br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr
style="border:none;color:rgb(144,144,144);background-color:rgb(176,176,176);min-height:1px;width:99%">
<table
style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border:none;padding:0px
15px 0px 8px"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/"
target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0">
</a></td>
<td>
<p
style="color:rgb(61,77,90);font-family:Calibri,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;font-size:12pt">This
email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus
software. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:04%20495%202118"
value="+6444952118" target="_blank">04 495
2118</a> (office) | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649"
value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64 21
442 649</a> (mob)<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz"
target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
<br>
Skype: jordancarter<br>
<br>
<i>A better world through a better Internet </i><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr
style="border:none;color:rgb(144,144,144);background-color:rgb(176,176,176);min-height:1px;width:99%">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank">
<img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0"> </a> </td>
<td>
<p
style="color:rgb(61,77,90);font-family:Calibri,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;font-size:12pt">
This email has been checked for viruses by
Avast antivirus software. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:04%20495%202118"
value="+6444952118" target="_blank">04 495 2118</a>
(office) | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649"
value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a>
(mob)<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz"
target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>
Skype: jordancarter<br>
<br>
<i>A better world through a better Internet </i><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>