[CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading)

[Greg Shatan]

Mathieu,

That recommendation ("every effort") is inadequate and frankly, bizarre.
Under what circumstances could an AC make "every effort" and still fail to
provide a rationale?  If an AC makes "every effort" to develop a rationale
and still fails, what does that tell us about the recommendation?  That no
rational support can be found for it?  That the AC can agree on the result
but not the rationale?  That the AC would rather not state the rationale?

For those who say that the GAC already offers rationales for their
recommendations -- if those rationales were considered satisfactory, this
issue would not have been raised in the first place.  If necessary, we can
go back to specific items of advice, and the rationales or lack thereof;
but I don't know that we have the time to engage in such an exercise.  For
one, I recall that in the .africa IRP concerns were raised about the lack
of a sufficiently-stated rationale.  If the GAC is looking for greater
parity with GNSO PDP policy recommendations, the documentation accompanying
those recommendations should serve as a guide.

It is heartening to hear that the GAC is already working on improving their
communication the rationales for their advice.  As such, we all seem to be
moving in the same direction.

With that in mind, there should be no real issue with removing the squishy
"every effort" loophole and stating an unqualified requirement for a
rationale for all AC advice.

Greg

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
wrote:

> Mathieu —  Regarding formal advice from any Advisory Committee (AC), many
> commenters reiterated that a rationale should be a *requirement* for
> advice to be considered by the board.   (BC, NPOC, Google, USCIB, RySG,
> Valideus, the US Chamber, RrSG, NCUC, I2C, Intel, IPC)
>
> It’s not enough to require that each AC "will make every effort”.
>
>
>
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> Date: Monday, January 18, 2016 at 3:10 AM
> To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Mike Chartier <
> mike.s.chartier at intel.com>
> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading)
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> Good catch indeed. Precisely the point of our first reading exercise.
>
>
>
> So we will add this to recommendation 11 agenda item tomorrow.
>
>
>
> I will note that the current annex includes a related recommendation :
>
> ·         Insert a mention for all ACs: “The AC will make every effort to
> ensure that the advice provided is clear and supported by a rationale.”
>
> Best,
>
> Mathieu
>
>
>
> *De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *De la part de* Greg
> Shatan
> *Envoyé :* lundi 18 janvier 2016 05:30
> *À :* Chartier, Mike S
> *Cc :* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading)
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> Good point and good catch.  This should not have been overlooked.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Chartier, Mike S <
> mike.s.chartier at intel.com> wrote:
>
> I think this is another illustration of how we need to be careful in
> documenting the process for handling comments (other than the Boards). For
> Recommendation 11 several commenters offered the proposal to add a
> requirement for GAC advice to be accompanied by a rationale. Given the
> general acceptance of proposals for rationales in other areas, I would have
> thought it would have at least been given a note in the prep document.
>
> Look forward to discussing on Tues.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alice
> Jansen
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 12:01 PM
> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading)
>
>
>
> *Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs*
>
>
>
> In preparation for your R*ecommendation 11 – GAC Advice (first reading)* discussion
> scheduled for your call #78 - Tuesday, 19 January 2016 (12:00 – 15:00
> UTC) - please find attached the material to review.
>
> Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in
> advance of the call.
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
> Mathieu, Thomas, León
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160118/1b97b029/attachment-0001.html>