[ALAC] Fwd: ALAC join our Joint Statement?

[Alan Greenberg]

I did not recall such GNSO action, nor is it on 
the agenda for today's meeting. So I asked Steve 
about the origin. This is his reply.

>This statement was drafted yesterday morning in GNSO constituencies, not
>in the GNSO Council.  So we¹re asking each constituency in GNSO whether
>they agree.  So far, IPC, Registries, Registrars, and BC are all agreed to
>join.  More are considering, and we really wanted to bring ALAC into the
>picture.

I certainly support the sentiment. I have not had 
the chance to review the details, but my first 
reaction is that I like it. Although I not sure 
that it is needed, I like the idea that it also 
applies to the constituent parts of ICANN as well 
as the Board (although perhaps the Board should be the first arbiter).

The ability to use this path in the course of 
Board INACTION may also be merited.

Alan


At 25/06/2014 02:42 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>Dear ALAC members,
>
>please be so kind to find the email below from Steve DelBianco.
>Comments? Suggestions?
>
>Kindest regards,
>
>Olivier
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject:        ALAC join our Joint Statement?
>Date:   Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:00:58 +0000
>From:   Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
>To:     Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr
><langdonorr at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>Please Think about joining all of GNSO on this 
>statement - to be delivered Thursday to the board
>
>Let me know soon as you can!
>-Steve
>
>
>The entire GNSO join together today calling for 
>the Board to support community creation of an 
>independent accountability mechanism that 
>provides meaningful review and adequate redress 
>for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in 
>contravention of an agreed upon compact with the 
>community.  This deserves the Board's serious 
>consideration - not only does it reflect an 
>unprecedented level of consensus across the 
>entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and 
>integral element of the IANA transition.
>
>True accountability does not mean ICANN is only 
>accountable to itself, or to some vague 
>definition of "the world," nor does it mean that 
>governments should have the ultimate say over 
>community policy subject to the rule of 
>law.   Rather, the Board's decisions must be 
>open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a 
>position of reviewing and certifying its own 
>decisions.  We need an independent 
>accountability structure that holds the ICANN 
>Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups 
>accountable under ICANN's governing documents, 
>serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff 
>decisions, and through the creation of 
>precedent, creates prospective guidance for the 
>board, the staff, and the entire community.
>
>As part of the IANA transition, the 
>multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity 
>and responsibility to propose meaningful 
>accountability structures that go beyond just 
>the IANA-specific accountability issues.  We are 
>committed to coming together and developing 
>recommendations for creation of these 
>mechanisms.  We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to 
>fulfill their obligations and support this 
>community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)