[CCWG-ACCT] Expanding the GAC-oriented review in the AoC Accountability & Transparency Review

[Greg Shatan]

Stress Test 18 reflects the status quo, and a concern about the effect of
changes to the status quo.  The proposed bylaw change responsive to Stress
Test 18 would maintain the status quo (as it applies to the Board's
consideration of GAC advice with the obligation to find a mutually
acceptable solution where an inconsistent action is proposed).  Making no
change to the Bylaw leaves open the possibility that the status quo will
change.

Right now, the GAC delivers advice decided on the basis of strong support
and the lack of a formal objection, and if the Board decides to take an
action inconsistent with that advice and formally approves that action (by
majority vote), then the Board and GAC must try to come to a mutually
acceptable resolution.  That's the status quo.  And I suspect that Bylaw
changes to maintain that status quo would get strong support from a broad
group of stakeholders.




On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Steve,
> I have no particular problem with your text.
> Pls consider my suggestion for status quo as now being supportzed by
> several GAC HAVE SUPPORTED that.
> One colleagues mentioned that " NO CHANGE" is not an option.
> That claim is not true.
> For years many entities including US Governmentinsisted that " NO CHANGE"
> is a valid  OPTION .There has been agreed so since 1995 .
> I have no option but to push for that alternative.
> We are happy with current situation which hasworked well which seems more
> neutral than Stress Test 18 which is detrimental to the GAC since one
> single Government could block the GAC cionsensus thus GAC could never ever
> acheive any consensus if that single Govermnet insist on its opposition to
> the emerging consensus.
> St 18 IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PROCESS ,IN PARTICULAR, ON THE ISSUE RELATING
> TO PUBLIC Policy.
> I can not / would like to further explain the detrimental consequencwe of
> ST18.
> Please kindly include this alternative now siupported by several GAC
> members as a workable option in your REC.11
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
>
> 2016-01-29 19:16 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:
>
>> Sounds good to me.
>> Jorge
>>
>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>>
>> Am 29.01.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
>> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>:
>>
>> Good ideas. I would support these minor amendments.
>> --MM
>>
>> I suggested one way to improve the community’s review of GAC-oriented
>> activities lies in the AoC’s Accountability and Transparency Review (known
>> as ATRT).
>>
>> Here is the suggested edit [in red and brackets] to the AoC’s ATRT Review
>> (Annex 9<
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%209%20-%20AOC%20reviews%20-%20First%20reading%20conclusions.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1453310811000&api=v2>
>> para 85):
>>
>> (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the
>> Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations
>> for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on
>> the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS
>> If this is acceptable to CCWG, we should amend Annex 9 para 85 as above.
>>  It might also be helpful to note the GAC-oriented review in Annex 10<
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%2010%20-%20SOAC%20Accountability%20-%201st%20reading%20conclusions.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1453451637000&api=v2>,
>> under para 3 for Work Stream 1. As in:
>>
>> “The periodic review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency required
>> under the Affirmation of Commitments is being incorporated into ICANN
>> bylaws as part of Work Stream 1.  In Recommendation 9 and Annex 9, the
>> Accountability and Transparency Review will include this among issues that
>> merit attention in the review:
>>
>>  (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the
>> Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations
>> for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on
>> the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:
>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160129/9f43dc5d/attachment.html>