<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>To say all advice on some hypothetical plane is the same would be silly of me.</div><div><br></div><div>To say that the advice on route server security, public policy, security and stability, and user concerns is equally important is easier. Perhaps different questions require different advice, and different groups have different utility depending on the issue under discussion, but yes on certain issues, especially issues that concern the overall well-being of ICANN, its service to its mission, and accountability of the organization, I believe all ACs, and SOs for that matter, are equally important.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">As for new SOs or ACs, if the CM and board someday agree, </span> it would require a bylaw,<span class="Apple-style-span"> that a new one needs to be created, then I assume it would be done because some equally important need had been discoverered. And yes I would probably consider them equally important.</span></div><div><br></div><div>As for trying to create rules that prevent the future from evolving differently, I personally wouldn't try. If ever we all wanted to create some body that gave something like advice that wasn't equally important, we would call it something else like a suggestion group. But for now, in the matrix organizational architecture ICANN has, considering all AC and SO equally important when discussing accountability makes sense to me.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:75%">avri</div><div style="font-size:75%"><br></div><div style="font-size:75%">Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device</div><br><br><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> </div><div>Date:10/27/2015 11:03 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18 </div><div><br></div>Avri,<br><br>Thank you for making your position clear.<br><br>Is your rational for equity that all advice is equally important?<br><br>Is your rational for equity that all advisory committees are equal?<br><br>Or do you allow for some advice having greater utility to the Board than <br>some other advice, and for some advisory committees having advice which <br>is of greater utility to the Board than some other advisory committees?<br><br>If the latter, does the privilege you seek to make universal across all <br>of the bylaws advisory entities arise from mere existence of an bylaws <br>advisory committee? Do you propose to prevent some future Board from <br>creating an advisory body it is not obliged to entertain beyond staff <br>review of the body's advisory work product?<br><br>Eric<br><br>On 10/27/15 4:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote:<br>><br>> On 27-Oct-15 17:13, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:<br>>> Could any conceivable accountability mechanism ameliorate what you see<br>>> as "a privilege given to no other advisory committee"?<br>> I think so.<br>><br>> I have long argued that all ACs should have the same privilege.<br>><br>> And that the Board should be able to say no after ascertaining that the<br>> process had taken the issue into account and decided otherwise. And if<br>> the issue had not been taken into account, then they needed to send it<br>> back into the process to be properly and fully considered.<br>><br>> As long as the Board adheres to its rule of _never_ making policy, not<br>> even when cloaked as implementation, the special privilege amounts to<br>> the courtesy of being heard and of having ones issues fully considered<br>> before acceptance or rejection of the recommendations coming from the<br>> Bottom Up Multistakeholder Process (BUMP). And if they don't that is<br>> where other escalation and enforcement comes in.<br>><br>> Now with the GNSO PDP models of WGs being open to everyone and all the<br>> special early engagement work being done with the GAC, new issues not<br>> previously considered should become more and more rare. And if the GAC,<br>> or any other AC, abused the privilege with too much advice on issues<br>> that had already been dealt with or which had not been introduced into<br>> the process at the right time, then the evaluation of the advice would<br>> become easier and more negative. Being a hopeful sort, I expect the<br>> system would eventually reach a suitable balance where most issues were<br>> considered and no one got a second or a special bite at the apple. And<br>> reasonable appeals related to ICANN mission and core values, and its<br>> bylaws would be properly addressed.<br>><br>> That is how the issue is ameliorated. Only some of this is about WS1<br>> accountability, i.e. making sure the articles and bylaws are up to<br>> snuff, much of it is a conversation for another time and place (WS2). I<br>> only meant to question the whole special privilege thing.<br>><br>> The problem with stress test 18 is that it is largely not an ICANN<br>> multistakeholder process issue, but is an intergovernmental issue. We<br>> are the intermediary.<br>><br>> avri<br>><br>><br>> ---<br>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br>><br>><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br><br></body>