[CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Jan 7 18:45:32 UTC 2016
Yes Jorge, it did and thanks for clarification.
But tell me hiow do you want that the matter beaddressed .
There are several provision in the ICANN Mission Staement, Nobady has asked
that the legal Team ensure that those provisions would be fully implemented.
Here is the GAC STATMENT
*"The GAC expects that any changes will not reduce the current role of the
GAC in providing advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to
concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an
interaction between ICANN’s policies and various laws and international
agreements or where they may affect public policy issues (as provided in
the current ByLaws). This includes issues such as consumer protection, the
respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and law enforcement." *Unquote
What do you expect from the lawyers to acertain.? How they can acertain ?
what is the assurance that whatever they acertain will be im plemented ?
Unless you put some text in the BALAWS which must be discussed and agreed
by CCWG and put it to public comments
there is no legal certainty that the GAC statemnt be implemented
The second statemnet is
"*The GAC further expects that changes to ICANN’s mission and core values
should not constrain the Board from accepting and implementing GAC advice.
In addition, ICANN’s ability to enforce contractual obligations and act
upon the public policy advice of the GAC should not be inadvertently
The same questions are also appicable
I do not see any possible means to further pursue the matter unless some
language to that effect be included in the Byélas which must be discussed
and agreed by CCWG and put it to public comments
2016-01-07 18:54 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 05:29:34PM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> > The trouble with your argument that we can just trust the Board to
> remain within the Mission when invited by the GAC to stray beyond it,
> without a mechanism to review their decisions, is that the same argument
> applies equally to the case of the Board acting inconsistently with the
> Bylaws in any other way, as it does to the specific case of the Board
> acting inconsistently with the Mission limitation.
> But I'm not making that argument (hence the tripartite response). But
> re-reading my message, I certainly didn't make my point clear. All I
> was trying to say was that, given the empowered community and the new
> accountability and so on, the case where the board will decide to
> wander out of its areas of responsibilty seems lower. And then, even
> if it does, we have the other mechanisms in place.
> Best regards,
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community