[CCWG-ACCT] comments on draft summary

Thu Nov 12 11:55:47 UTC 2015

I think Avri and Alan are incorrect about "increasing the powers of the ACs and SOs." We are not, we are merely making the board (slightly) more accountable to them, so that the SOs and AC's existing powers can actually be enforced. We have known for some time that the board can just disregard and SO's proposed policy or make unilateral post-hoc modifications of it based on political pressure from the GAC or other parties behind the scenes. The community enforcement mechanism does not change the role of the SOs or ALAC, it simply gives them the ability to make the board pay attention to what they do. 

The GAC's role would be unchanged by this; it would still have the special bylaw-enhanced power to hold up the process and make everyone pay attention to its advice and negotiate over it. Because the GAC is _supposed_ to be purely advisory, it should not be able to enforce its advice as if its preferences were the equivalent of a bottom up consensus coming from an SO. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 12:30 PM
> To: avri at acm.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] comments on draft summary
> 
> I tend to agree. The concept that ALL of the powers we are discussing are over
> and above what we (the SO/ACs) do in our "normal life" in ICANN is often
> forgotten. SOs recommending policy and ACs giving advice is a fact, but this
> entire accountability process is adding a new dimension to their existence.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 10/11/2015 10:20 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I think one point that is missing in this discussion is that we are
> >increasing the powers of all segments of the ICANN community, with the
> >exception of the ICANN Board.  In that respect, if we are to point out
> >that the GAC influence is increasing it must be done in the context of
> >increasing the powers of all other the SO and the ALAC and with
> >consideration that in relative terms the GAC is not being increased any
> >more than any other SOAC.   It should be noted that not to give GAC an
> >equivalent increase in its ability to participate in decisions with
> >regard to ICANN the organization, not is policies, would be to decrease
> >the influence of the GAC.  If the intention of the proposal is to
> >decrease the relative influence of the GAC, we should be clear in
> >stating that fact.
> >
> >avri
> >
> >
> >On 10-Nov-15 14:26, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with all of Robin's points below.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In particular, the point about the GAC needs clarity and correction.
> > > Pedro, Steve, Jorge and others were actually discussing significant
> > > changes to the GAC advisory role yesterday. Even if those changes
> > > are not included in the proposal and the GAC advisory role remains
> > > unchanged, we are proposing allowing GAC to exercise significant
> > > additional powers and influence through participation in the
> > > community mechanism.  This needs to be made clear.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Brett
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
> > > BrettSchaefer
> > > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory
> > > Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for
> > > National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation
> > > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> > > Washington, DC 20002
> > > 202-608-6097
> > > heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
> > >
> > > *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> > > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
> > > Of *Robin Gross
> > > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:06 PM
> > > *To:* Accountability Cross Community
> > > *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] comments on draft summary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In addition to the comments on the text provided by Brett and
> > > Tatiana, with which I separately voiced my agreement, I'd offer the
> > > following comments on the draft summary just released:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *I.  p.4-5 "The CCWG-Accountability is not recommending that any
> > > changes or alterations be made to ... the advisory role of the
> > > GAC..."  *
> > >
> > > This statement is simply false.  We ARE in fact proposing a big
> > > change
> > > - in that we are offering a */decision making /*role to GAC on the
> > > community powers.  I understand the desire to make the claim
> > > otherwise, but we are simply misleading the public to say that at
> > > the beginning of the report no changes to GAC's advisory role are
> > > recommended, but in the details to come out later, we learn we are
> > > providing GAC a decision making role on key issues.  We should be
> > > honest and admit that is what we are doing and provide the rationale
> > > for it (if we believe it is worth doing).  But simply to claim we
> > > aren't proposing a change in GAC's advisory role, when we are in
> > > fact proposing a major change of GAC's role to decision making is
> > > shamefully misleading on our part.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *II.  p. 18 and 20 - The process can only be used once for removing
> > > an individual director.  *
> > >
> > > We need to specify at what stage does that "once" count.  I think
> > > the right place for that "once" to count is at the stage of
> > > community forum deliberations.  I don't think we are saying there
> > > can only be a single petition (stage 1) to remove an individual
> > > board member because that could be filed with little merit and go no
> > > where, and then the community would lose its opportunity to use that
> > > power when a legitimate need to exercise it comes along.  It could
> > > even be used to "game" the process, by intentionally filing bogus
> > > petitions to eliminate the power in a legitimate case.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *III.  p.34 on reconsideration process.*
> > >
> > > Current wording of draft, which is unclear what is meant:
> > >
> > >     * Focusing on having the ICANN Ombudsman performing the initial
> > > assessments of Reconsideration Requests *_in relation to_* ICANN's
> > > Legal Department.
> > >
> > > Proposed change to clarify what is meant (red text):
> > >
> > >    * Focusing on having the ICANN Ombudsman performing the initial
> > > assessments of Reconsideration Requests *_instead of_*ICANN's Legal
> > > Department.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Robin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> >
> >---
> >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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