[CCWG-ACCT] Hi, Re: the power to enforce AOC type (6.7) recommendations
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Mon Apr 27 02:59:43 UTC 2015
Hi,
Ok, at this point I no longer think I am confused. Thanks for the
elucidations.
My current impression is that we have not changed anything with respect
to AOC type review recommendations, They will essentially remain the
way it they are now. The improvement is that the same reconsideration
and IRP measures will have now, will be improved. And of course there
is the new non-confidence measure at the end of the road.
While strengthening the redress measures we are not doing anything
specific to strengthen the uptake of AOC type review recommendations.
If that is what we have decided, I am ok with it, as long as we do not
claim that we have added anything to the approval of reports more than
we have added to anything else. We probably should remove the line that
says
>
> Require the ICANN board to approve and implement review team
> recommendations, including
> recommendations from previous reviews.
>
Since that is not the case as far as I can tell. What will continue to
happen is that the review teams will submit the report, there will be a
public comment period, and then the Board will decide what it wants to
do with the recommendations. And if the community does not like it,
they can, assuming they have standing, can request reconsideration, CEP
and IRP.
avri
On 26-Apr-15 17:30, Jordan Carter wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:avri at acm.org>
> Sent: 4/26/2015 2:41 PM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto: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>
>> [mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 removed by sender. Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> /A better world through a better Internet /
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150426/6afa65ab/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150426/6afa65ab/attachment.jpe>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list