[ST-WP] Spurring Board Action

Wed Apr 8 19:48:10 UTC 2015

Here's the 19min MP3 of the discussion

Jonathan Zuck
President
202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck at actonline.org<mailto:jzuck at actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck

ACT | The App Association
[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/twitter.png]<https://twitter.com/actonline>

[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/fb.png]<https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org>

[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/actonline.png]<http://actonline.org>

________________________________
From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 9:19 AM
To: Jonathan Zuck; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
Cc: ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ST-WP] Spurring Board Action

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 :-)

<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ...  (CLO)

about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr

On 8 April 2015 at 23:05, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org<mailto: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<mailto:jzuck at actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck

ACT | The App Association
[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/twitter.png]<https://twitter.com/actonline>

[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/fb.png]<https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org>

[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/actonline.png]<http://actonline.org>

_______________________________________________
Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list
Ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org<mailto: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/20150408/5b22dfe1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: stress-08apr15-inaction-en.mp3
Type: audio/mp3
Size: 7688755 bytes
Desc: stress-08apr15-inaction-en.mp3
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150408/5b22dfe1/stress-08apr15-inaction-en-0001.mp3>