[CCWG-ACCT] comments on Annex 1 to draft report

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Tue Nov 24 08:25:17 UTC 2015


On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Comments on Annex 1.
>
>
> p. 6: “Maintaining the advisory role of govts in the Supporting
> Organization and Advisory Committee Structure”.  This sounds like we are
> trying to hide the truth, which is that we are changing the GAC from being
> an advisory role to being a decisional role on key ICANN issues.  We should
> be more upfront about how this changes the roles and why we think it is
> worth doing.
>

SO: No Idea why this is being repeated over and over again; the powers that
is introduced is new to the entire community, within the scope of
exercising community powers, the power that is given to GAC is also given
to every other SO/AC (i.e the decision participating SO/AC). So its for
instance a change in power for GNSO from being a policy make body to having
a decisional role on any general ICANN issues. That said, perhaps using the
word "change" is not even appropriate because SO/AC maintains their current
purpose so saying all SO/ACs will have "additional" roles post-transition
may be more appropriate.

>
> Also, I don’t see where we explain why we didn’t follow the public
> comment, which cautioned against devaluing SO’s to ACs and instead went in
> the opposite direction by providing an even higher decisional weight to ACs
> than had be offered in the 2nd draft.


SO: Do you also agree that there were many public comments that supports it
and those were indeed more than those against. While number of
support/against is not very good way of addressing issues, I believe the
reasons/explanation made by those in support is convincing enough, just
that you don't agree.


>
>
> It also seems misleading to say we are not voting when we treat all five
> SOACs with equal weight in a decisional process.  I expect this annex will
> lead to much public dis-satisfaction over how comments and other concerns
> were handled and then not explained in any way in the report.
>

SO: Well i agree that indicating support/against can be some form of
voting. I will suggest that the word voting be muted and that fact that
decision making will be based on consensus of those in support/against be
emphasized.

Regards

>
> Best,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151124/21624118/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list