[CCWG-ACCT] Rationale for Stress Test 18

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Really?  I would think the exact opposite.  After a year of dilation and
delay the GAC has failed to articulate why it is "just like" any other AC
(such that its internal processes should be its own business) in the face of
its Bylaw-privleged ability to command the Board to negotiate.  As most of
us have recognized, so long as the GAC has that privileged position and has
the ability to compel Board consideration in a way that other ACs do not,
its internal processes do, necessarily, create an accountability issue.
That's something that the overwhelming majority of the community has
recognized with only a few outliers.

 

For myself, I would prefer to strip the GAC of its privileged position - in
which case I would be content for them to use whatever process they want.
But that, alas, does not command a broad consensus either.

 

Cheers

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>  

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> 

 

 

From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net] 
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 1:42 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Rationale for Stress Test 18

 

On 10/17/15 9:51 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote:

In GAC session today, some said they did not understand why we needed Stress
Test 18.


While January is quite a long time ago, even in ICANN process development
time, at the time when the BC provided their scenarios to "Work Group #4" I
wrote:




-- 
BC  #6. GAC votes 

The accountability issue here isn't obvious to me. The bylaws create several
Advisory Councils, each of which may have distinct internal processes
resulting in the issuance of advice. A change in any AC's internal process
does not necessarily create an accountability issue. 

I suggest this item should be discarded. 


Here we are, still using our very finite time, on a scenario the better part
of a year's aging has not improved.

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151017/fcf9daba/attachment.html>