[CCWG-ACCT] TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)

[Schaefer, Brett]

Malcolm raises a fair question, but I would apply it more generally. The current bylaw stipulates that the EC can’t reject to the ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan except in the specified circumstances. I acknowledge that the listed criteria cover the most likely reasons for a rejection petition and the final clause (“or other matter of concern to the community”) is rather open ended.

But on principle I think the EC should be able to reject those budgets and plans for any reason as long as they provide a rationale. If the rationale is weak or caters to the concerns of a small slice of the ICANN community, it won’t receive sufficient support from the EC to pass the threshold. If it passes the EC rejection threshold, then I think that alone would demonstrates that the rationale has merit regardless of its basis and should lead the Board to reconsider.


________________________________
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 8:27 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)



On 04/05/2016 07:43, Mathieu Weill wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from
> our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to
> the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power
> escalation process.
>
>
> *From:*Grapsas, Rebecca
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM
> *To:* Gregory, Holly
> *Subject:* Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
>
> (A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is
> sought. Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN
> Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the
> Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be
> accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the
> Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant
> issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment
> period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission,
> purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and
> Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders,
> financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community;

So the Empowered Community will not be able to reject the Budget,
Operating Plan or Strategic Plan unless per a rationale identified in
the Public Comment period for that budget/plan?

What if the reason for rejecting the budget/plan is that ICANN failed to
hold a public comment period?


--
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/<http://publicaffairs.linx.net/>

London Internet Exchange Ltd
Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ

Company Registered in England No. 3137929
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA


_______________________________________________
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<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/20160504/3ddfc3b1/attachment-0001.html>