[CCWG-ACCT] SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report after plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Mar 30 05:19:26 UTC 2017


Hello,

I agree on the process point in Avri's mail as i think it will have been
good for the SO/AC accountability leads to get back to the sub-group on
this. I personally have not been consistent with subgroups meetings lately
hence i may not have full glimpse of what gave the leads the confidence to
update subgroup documents on the fly, i guess it could be that they've
checked the temperature of the subgroup on such hypothesis in the past.
Nevertheless, the leads sure will be in the best position to do the needful
(i note though that the subgroup was copied in Steve's mail).

That said, I for one would have loved to see the "mutual" maintained but
owning to realities on ground at it concerns SO/AC relationships i have my
doubts. Recent events especially those related to the Atlarge review and
considering how some SO/AC members/leaders reacted to it, further confirms
my doubt on whether this community is matured enough to have such level of
cross accountability. Besides, it's "somewhat" impractical for some groups
like the ASO whose accountability is largely to/from the RIR community. The
extent of checking SSAC's accountability who largely operates closed (for
good reasons) is also one of the reasons why mutual may be ineffective or
at best become one sided.

Regards

On 29 Mar 2017 4:01 p.m., "avri doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I find this way of explaining it unfortunately.
>
> The subgroup sent a paper with the word 'Mutual' in.  For the subgroup
> leaders to now indicate that this was just the whimsy of a minority of
> the plenary when that had been the recommendation of the subgroup seems
> backwards.
>
> I believe that the plenary group chairs played fast and loose with the
> process by changing the work of the subteam on the fly instead of
> sending it back to the subteam.  It should have either approved the
> second reading or sent it back for further work.
>
>
> avri
>
>  I'm late / I'm late / For a very important date. / No time to say
> "Hello, Goodbye". / I'm late, I'm late, I'm late.
>
>
> On 29-Mar-17 10:40, Steve DelBianco wrote:
> > Per the decision reached on today’s plenary call, here is the SOAC
> > Accountability Report as approved for Public Comment.
> >
> > The 2 minor edits to the previous draft are:
> >
> >     remove the word “ranks” on page 7.
> >     remove the word “mutual” on page 32.
> >
> >
> > The call for Public Comment could indicate this explanation and seek
> > community input:
> >
> >
> >     A minority of CCWG members prefer that the optional annual
> >     Accountability Roundtable discussion described on page 32 be
> >     expanded to include “mutual” accountability, where each SO/AC is
> >     held accountable to the other SO/ACs.
> >
> > From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org
> > <mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
> > Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:01 PM
> > To: Accountability Cross Community
> > <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com
> > <mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>, farzaneh badii
> > <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>,
> > "ws2-so_ac at icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac at icann.org>"
> > <ws2-so_ac at icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac at icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff
> > <acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>, Bernard Turcotte
> > <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>>
> > Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report for plenary
> > 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017
> >
> > To our CCWG colleagues:
> >
> > Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC
> > Accountability group of Work Stream 2, revised per comments at our
> > first reading at the 10-Mar plenary in Copenhagen.  Including:
> >
> >
> >     Clarify we are looking only at activities within ICANN, so we are
> >     not looking at NRO and IETF outside of ICANN.
> >
> >     For best practices instead of saying”should consider”, we say
> >     "should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable
> >     and an improvement…”
> >
> >     Suggest that future ATRTs may examine the extent to which best
> >     practices have been implemented.
> >
> >     Recommend an optional mutual accountability roundtable at annual
> >     general meetings, at the option of SO/AC chairs.
> >
> >     Add 5 examples of reasons to close a meeting to public observation
> >
> >     Make best practices more consistent regarding meeting notes and
> >     minutes
> >
> >     Add the dimension of diversity to outreach best practices.
> >
> > We have also attached a redline from version 1.0 to version 1.1
> >
> > Our group looks forward to your questions and comments during 2nd
> > reading on 29-Mar.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii
> > Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170330/1edb642a/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list