<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
While I would prefer to see AOC Type recommendations get at least
the degree of consideration GAC advice gets,<br>
if it is decided that this isn't needed, then I will live with it
getting only the degree of consideration the non-governmental ACs
get. I still think it puts too much power to refuse in the Board's
hands and I think it a mistake. Though, I will argue against any
indication in the doc that we are strengthening the AOC type
reviews, as I think we are actually weakening them, all things
considered.<br>
<br>
I do not think another comment period is all that useful as there is
no constraint on the Board to listen to what is contributed in
another comment period.<br>
<br>
I.e. one of those weakening considerations and in relation to one
comment: while it is true that recommendations of an AOC have
largely been approved, they have always had the imprimatur of the
head of NTIA. Remember that is what we will be giving up in this
process, thus weakening it unless we add other measures.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27-Apr-15 16:13, Jordan Carter
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK2bTy-GVUJyYYRgstUFUKShUVPvPKhzwXMZiRaGS-RnwD3P-w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">We don't need to distinguish in this way, because
in either case the processes are available to force a
reconsideration. The appetite to do so will be down to how well
the Board has set out its logic. It's less likely to get forced
into such in the second situation, since by definition that
would be simpler to see being a helpful proposal (at least in
the eyes of the community review team).
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Following our doctrine of conservative simplicity I don't
think we should prepare other wording... but if you would like
to Alan, or Avri, I am certainly open to it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>cheers</div>
<div>Jordan<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 28 April 2015 at 03:39, Alan
Greenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
I have no problem with something like that (but I
admit I hadn't thought
of it before - we have had very few recommendations
that the Board has
not accepted).<br>
<br>
We might want to treat "No, we will not do that" and
"We
have concerns and propose an alternative action"
differently. Or
perhaps not. Reconvening the group that made the Rec
is probably the best
way to address this. The learning curve might be too
steep otherwise. We
would not get 100% participation, but surely would get
the people who
were the strongest on wanting the particular Rec.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 27/04/2015 10:42 AM, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi,<br>
<font color="#330033"><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>
On 27-Apr-15 03:25, Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">hi Avri, all <br>
<br>
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:<span class=""><br>
<br>
"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."<br>
<br>
</span>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Therefore (and I'd appreciate eyes on this from
Steve, Matthew, Fiona etc
- the team who helped develop this) - how would
this look:<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
CURRENT: "Require the ICANN board to approve and
implement review
team recommendations, including recommendations
from previous
reviews."<br>
<br>
<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."<br>
<br>
Replacing the text in the last box of the
proposed bylaw that would
govern all these AOC style reviews:<br>
<br>
CURRENT: "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."<br>
<br>
<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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
Jordan<br>
<br>
On 27 April 2015 at 14:59, Avri Doria
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>>
wrote:</blockquote>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>Hi,<br>
</dd>
<dd>Ok, at this point I no longer think I am
confused. Thanks for
the elucidations.<br>
</dd>
<dd>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>
</dd>
<dd>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<span class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<dl>
<dd>Require the ICANN board to approve and
implement review team
recommendations, including
</dd>
<dd>recommendations from previous reviews.</dd>
</dl>
</blockquote>
</span></dd>
</dl>
</blockquote>
<dd>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>
</dd>
<dd>avri<br>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">On 26-Apr-15 17:30, Jordan Carter
wrote:</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">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>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>cheers
</dd>
<dd>Jordan<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">On 27 April 2015 at 07:29,
Jonathan Zuck
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:JZuck@actonline.org"
target="_blank">JZuck@actonline.org</a>>
wrote:
</div>
</div>
<dl>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">I'm saying that both
adoption and rejection are reviewable
decisions.
Inaction would be the failure to make a
decision.<br>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">Sent from my Windows Phone
<hr>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">Avri
Doria</a>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">Sent: 4/26/2015 2:41 PM
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>To:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT]
the power to enforce AOC type (6.7)
recommendations<br>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>Hi,<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dd>Does that help?</dd>
</blockquote>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">Apologies, but I think I
remain confused. <br>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">I understand that we still
have the ultimate accountability
function.
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">Still don't know if there
is any other power.<br>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">First, as far as I
remember, we did not get the Power to
force a
decision against complete inaction.<br>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">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">
<dd>because once the board has made a
decision, we are putting in
accountability mechanisms to
question that decision</dd>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">Do you mean
reconsideration and IRP? <br>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>thanks
</dd>
<dd>avri<br>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">On 26-Apr-15 14:03,
Jonathan Zuck
wrote:</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dd>Avri,<br>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">I completely agree
that this is new obligation and that
it must find
its way into the bylaws.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd> <br>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">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>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd> <br>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">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 on the part of the
board.<br>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd> <br>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">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>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd> <br>
</dd>
<dd>Does that help?<br>
</dd>
<dd>Jonathan<br>
</dd>
<dd> <br>
</dd>
<dd> <br>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">From:
<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>] On Behalf
Of
Avri Doria
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">Sent: Sunday, April
26, 2015 1:29 PM
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>To:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">Subject: [CCWG-ACCT]
the pwoer to enforce AOC type (6.7)
recommendations<br>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd> <br>
</dd>
<dd>Hi,<br>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">In the draft
recommendations (6.7.2):<br>
<br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>Require the ICANN board to
approve and implement review
team
recommendations, including
</dd>
<dd>recommendations from previous
reviews.<br>
<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>The final output of all
reviews will be published for
public
comment.
</dd>
<dd>The Board shall consider
approval and begin
implementation within
</dd>
<dd>six months of receipt of the
recommendations.<br>
<br>
<br>
</dd>
</dl>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
</blockquote>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</blockquote>
</dd>
</div>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">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>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">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>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">I did not have a response and am
wondering what part of the community
powers I am forgetting.<br>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">This points to the more general
question about any recommendation of
an AOC type review.<br>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>
<div>
<div class="h5">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>
</div>
</div>
</dd>
<dd>Thanks<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank">
<img moz-do-not-send="true" alt="Image removed by
sender." height="100" width="100">
</a><br>
<span class="">
</span></dd>
<dd>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
antivirus software. </dd>
<dd><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
<br>
</dd>
<dd> </dd>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr><span class="">
<dd>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
antivirus software. </dd>
<dd><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>_______________________________________________
</dd>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
</dd>
<dd><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
</dd>
<dd>
<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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</dd>
</span><span class="">
<dd>-- </dd>
<dd>Jordan Carter<br>
</dd>
<dd>Chief Executive </dd>
<dd>InternetNZ<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:04%20495%202118" target="_blank">04 495
2118</a> (office) |
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" target="_blank">+64
21 442 649</a> (mob)
</dd>
<dd><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz"
target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> </dd>
<dd>Skype: jordancarter<br>
</dd>
<dd>A better world through a better Internet </dd>
</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<hr><span class="">
<dd>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
antivirus software. </dd>
<dd><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>_______________________________________________
</dd>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
</dd>
<dd><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
</dd>
<dd>
<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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
InternetNZ<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:04%20495%202118"
target="_blank">04 495 2118</a> (office) |
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" 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>
A better world through a better Internet </dd>
</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<hr><span class="">
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> <br>
<br>
<br>
<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>
</span>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">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 class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><br>
<br>
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (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>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</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>