<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 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 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 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 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 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 href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a 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 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>
<div align="center"></div>
</dd><dd><a href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank">
<img width="100" height="100" alt="Image removed by sender.">
</a><br><span class="">
</span></dd><dd>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
</dd><dd><a 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 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 href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
</dd><dd>
<a 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 href="tel:04%20495%202118" target="_blank">04 495 2118</a> (office) |
<a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)
</dd><dd><a 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 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 href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
</dd><dd>
<a 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 href="tel:04%20495%202118" target="_blank">04 495 2118</a> (office) |
<a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br>
<a 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 href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> <br><br>
<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a 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 href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a 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 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>