[ST-WP] Spurring Board Action

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

You have covered of  the issues we discussed in summary very well and I
trust not stressed our members and Participants but rather helped highlight
why stress testing is useful ;-)   It would also I think be helpful to clip
the MP3 as well and send us a link as I suspect that the Legal advisors
will find that a useful resource (assuming that the client committee agrees
that our specific questions (as captured in the notes by staff during the
call)  on this matter need to be explored, and I trust that they will...

...Thank You Jonathan :-)


*Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ...  *(CLO)

about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
[image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
  <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>


On 8 April 2015 at 23:05, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org> wrote:

>   Greetings!
>
> On the call this morning, we had a discussion of some stress tests that
> risk falling through the cracks. Cheryl asked me to briefly summarize the
> portion of the discussion dealing with stress tests which involved board
> *inaction*. You might recall that Alan Greenberg originally brought up
> the notion of "compelling the board to take action" and there are several
> of the existing stress tests that highlight the need for that capability on
> the part of the community. Specifically,
>
>
>  ST 11: “force ICANN to implement a recommendation arising from an AOC
> review, namely SSR"
>
>  ST 17:  "force ICANN to respond to recommendations from advisory
> committees such as SSAC."
>
>  ST 3,4, 20, 22:  “force ICANN to implement a consensus policy or
> recommendation of an AoC review”
>
>
>  Cheryl brought up the fact that 11 and 17 had piqued the interest of the
> CWG so we focused on those two. Stress test 11 was inspired by the recent
> breach at ICANN and the inability of the community to extract information
> about the breach. Without the ability to spur action, that stress test
> would fail.
>
>
>  Stress test 17 was about recommendations that are ignored by the board.
> One example we have used for some time is on the issue of Name Collisions
> and certs where a fairly large outcry on the part of the community was
> required to spur action a year ago. Another example, near and dear to the
> ALAC is dotless domains where there was very specific advice from SSAC as
> well as consensus concern and the board was slow to respond.
>
>
>  Avri brought up recommendation 9 of the ATRT with respect to advice
> which dictates the board respond to advice in a timely manner:
>
>
>  9.1. ICANN Bylaws Article XI should be amended to include the following
> language to mandate Board Response to Advisory Committee Formal Advice:
>
> *The ICANN Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice from all
> Advisory Committees, explaining what action it took and the rationale for
> doing so.*
>
>
>  The question then arose whether a board "response" would be sufficient
> to trigger the other review mechanisms currently under consideration  by
> WP2 so it was resolved to discuss that with Becky and her team. Perhaps it
> would be enough to dictate that the trigger mechanism for a review is a
> decision or response from the board. If not, we might need revisit a
> specific community power to induce the board to vote on a recommendation so
> that the vote can act as a trigger for further review if necessary.
>
>
>  Cheryl, I hope I have sufficiently stressed everyone out with the
> possibility of board inaction. Feel free to ask questions or raise issues I
> have forgotten. I'll clip the mp3 for the topic if that's helpful to folks.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>   Jonathan Zuck
>
> *President*
>
> 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck at actonline.org | Skype: jvzuck
>
>
>
> ACT | The App Association
>
> <https://twitter.com/actonline>
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org>
>
> <http://actonline.org>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list
> Ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150408/f8cb23a2/attachment-0001.html>