[CCWG-ACCT] the power to enforce AOC type (6.7) recommendations

[Jordan Carter]

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.

cheers
Jordan


On 27 April 2015 at 07:29, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org> wrote:

>  I'm saying that both adoption and rejection are reviewable decisions.
> Inaction would be the failure to make a decision.
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
>  ------------------------------
> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> Sent: 4/26/2015 2:41 PM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] the power to enforce AOC type (6.7)
> recommendations
>
>  Hi,
>
> Does that help?
>
>
> Apologies, but I think I remain confused.
>
> I understand that we still have the ultimate accountability function.
> Still don't know if there is any other power.
>
> First, as far as I remember, we did not get the Power to force a decision
> against complete inaction.
>
> 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.
>
> because once the board has made a decision, we are putting in
> accountability mechanisms to question that decision
>
>
> Do you mean reconsideration and IRP?
>
> thanks
> avri
>
> On 26-Apr-15 14:03, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
>
>  Avri,
>
> I completely agree that this is new obligation and that it must find its
> way into the bylaws.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Does that help?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Avri
> Doria
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 26, 2015 1:29 PM
> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] the pwoer to enforce AOC type (6.7) recommendations
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> In the draft recommendations (6.7.2):
>
>
>  Require the ICANN board to approve and implement review team
> recommendations, including
> recommendations from previous reviews.
>
>
>
>  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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I did not have a response and am wondering what part of the community
> powers I am forgetting.
>
> This points to the more general question about any recommendation of an
> AOC type review.
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks
>
> avri
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> [image: Image removed by sender. Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>   [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150427/4385d5bb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150427/4385d5bb/ATT00001.jpg>