[CCWG-ACCT] With regards to incorporation of reviews from the AoC

[Alan Greenberg]

But we did (correctly in my mind) make other changes where they made 
sense and would allow a RT to spend their time productively.

Alan

At 05/08/2015 06:26 AM, James Gannon wrote:

>Hi Steve's and CCWG,
>
>
>I followed the conversations around the incorporation of the AoC 
>reviews into the bylaws on the CCWG webinar lat night with a lot of interest.
>
>
>I believe that there is an extremely interesting discussion to be 
>had as to the appropriateness and scope of the WHOIS review in 
>particular, as a strong privacy advocate I think that the review may 
>not go far enough and I would have loved to have beefed up to review 
>as part of the CCWG's work along with many other fixes that I could 
>envision within the AoC that I would like to see, but on this matter 
>its important that we remember the scope of the CCWG and the scope 
>of the incorporation of the AoC effort.
>
>
>The incorporation of the AoCs came largely out of the work on Stress 
>Test 14 which among its conclusions stated
>    *   Another proposed measure is to import Affirmation of 
> Commitments provisions into the ICANN Bylaws, and dispense with the 
> bilateral Affirmation of Commitments with NTIA. Bylaws would be 
> amended to include Affirmation of Commitments 3, 4, 7, and 8, plus 
> the 4 periodic reviews required in paragraph 9.
>
>
>Currently located in the 2nd Draft Proposal as paragraph 882 on page 
>107. The Stress Test working party has been working on these key 
>parts of the proposal since March, allowing plenty of time for input 
>to be gathered from every stakeholder with regards to one of the key 
>methods by which we as the CCWG are judging our own work.
>
> From my own memory, but I'd ask Steve DelBianco or CLO to correct 
> me, I don't recall any consensus push within the ST-WP to 
> fundamentally assess the content of the AoC or in particular the 
> incorporation of the AoC reviews and indeed the wording of the 
> conclusion to Stress Test 14 reflects that in its choice of 
> "import" as its active verb when referring to the AoC incorporation 
> effort. We tread a fine line here in the CCWG between doing what is 
> necessary in our opinion to enhance the accountability of ICANN and 
> enacting additional changes via the CCWG process.
>
>Its my opinion that changing the substantive content of the AoC 
>reviews during their incorporation into the bylaws would undermine 
>the fragile balance that the CCWG has strove to achieve throughout 
>its work. Do I think that the WHOIS review needs to be addressed, 
>most certainly yes in a major manner, but the CCWG is a wholly 
>inappropriate venue for that change to be addressed. Changes to the 
>AoC as they stand now are within the control of the ICANN board and 
>the NTIA to change, if indeed we have a current AoC affirmation that 
>is "wrong and destructive" I would suggest that the board needs to 
>approach both the NTIA and the community with a suggested change, 
>this is within the ability of the board to suggest and for the NTIA 
>to agree to as per the current AoC text below
>
>             11. The DOC enters into this Affirmation of Commitments 
> pursuant to its authority under 15 U.S.C. 1512 and 47 U.S.C. 902. 
> ICANN commits to this Affirmation according to its Articles of 
> Incorporation and its Bylaws. This agreement will become effective 
> October 1, 2009. The agreement is intended to be long-standing, but 
> may be amended at any time by mutual consent of the parties. Any 
> party may terminate this Affirmation of Commitments by providing 
> 120 days written notice to the other party
>
>Or as an alternative once the reviews are incorporated into the 
>bylaws the board of the community or both working together can bring 
>a bylaws amendment to change the text of the WHOIS review bylaw. We 
>are not baking in the reviews to never be changed, we are bringing 
>across a core set of accountability measures without substantial 
>changes to reflect their current standing, I hope that everyone 
>understands that the CCWG is not here to fix every aspect of ICANN, 
>we are here to enhance its accountability, lets be cognisant of that 
>in our work as we come to this critical time.
>
>Sorry for a wall of text but I think that this is an important issue 
>for the community to address and for the board to understand the 
>reasoning for the communities stance on this.
>
>-James
>    *
>_______________________________________________
>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/20150805/ddbbfb49/attachment.html>