[CCWG-ACCT] Follow up from the last CCWG call

[Edward Morris]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> ​The circular nature of the RR process is a significant concern.  It is
> almost Kafka-esque.
>


Of course, that's the re part of reconsideration.

My impression is that one of the problems is that reconsideration takes
place largely without much real new input for the Board to consider. The
aggrieved party merely re-argues its case before the same people that made
the initial decision. No surprise then that over 95% of reconsideration
requests are unsuccessful.

One approach to change this would be to include, at the Requestor's option,
an intermediary process where the Ombudsman could look at the Request and
make a recommendation to the Board for action/inaction. The basis of the
recommendation would need to be stated (we perhaps would need to expand the
remit of the Ombudsman, in this instance, to do so) and rather short time
limits would need to be involved so decisions are reached in a reasonable
timeframe, but it would be a way to get the contentious issue before a set
of independent eyes before it reverts back to the Board. A bit less
Kafka-esque and hopefully enough to make the reconsideration process as bit
less predictable in terms of outcome and a better mechanism for true
accountability.

Ed

>
> Greg​
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Izumi for joining this conversation on reconsideration request.
>> But we aren't adding it as a "new" issue to WS1 however, it has been in WS1
>> since the Frankfurt meeting in January.
>>
>> There are a couple additional issues that we need to bring in to the
>> discussion on Reconsideration Request reform, however.
>>
>> One issue has been brought up about the problem of the circular nature of
>> the RR process at this point - that it is basically asking the board to
>> decide if it was right before.  There was some suggestion that we need to
>> look at this circular aspect of the issue as well, and possibly find a
>> mechanism that provides for a different set of eyes making the first cut
>> when at looking at the merits of Request.  I'd be interested to hear what
>> others think of this circular aspect of the RR process.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>>
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> >
>> > I'd like to follow up from the last call for reconsideration being list
>> as WS1 requirement.
>> >
>> > As you can see from the chat record of CCWG ACCT Session #18 we
>> requested for more time to consider it since it is the first time we see
>> this and and this was agreed by the chair.
>> > The current note from CCWG ACCT Session #18 call says "CONCLUSION:
>> Reconsideration process is WS1. " May I suggest this to be revised as this
>> is not consistent with what was agreed?
>> >
>> > As a feedback on reconsideration process, I support we consider this as
>> a group, move fast on drafting requirements, identify ways to address it.
>> > At the sametime I have some reservations on making a decision at this
>> point for this mechanims to be in WS1.
>> >
>> > We have at this point identified as WS1 :
>> >
>> > - Enhancing ICANN's Mission and Core Values
>> > - Develop Fundamental Bylaw
>> > - Strengthening the existing independent review process, and
>> > - Mechanisms for community empowerment which includes "recall the ICANN
>> Board of Directors", "approve or prevent changes to the ICANN Bylaws,
>> Mission and Core Values", "reject Board decisions on Strategic Plan and
>> budget"
>> >
>> > It looks like we already have several core powers to ensure
>> accountability of key decisions.
>> >
>> > I support the group to continue working on this, progress as much as
>> possible, but I would like to see an overall picture of accountability
>> mechanism based on what we have identifies already, before adding more as
>> WS1.
>> >
>> > As a away forward, I would like to suggest that we continue working on
>> this but to visit whether this should be in WS1 after we go through
>> developing mechanisms for core requirements we have already identified
>> powers for, have legal reviews, conduct stress test, rather than to make a
>> decision at this point.
>> >
>> > I would be intersted to hear if anyone have other thoughts on why we
>> have to make a decision at this point that this needs to be in WS1.
>> >
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Izumi Okutani
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
>
> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150407/95430733/attachment.html>