[ALAC] Fwd: RE: Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan -- Clarifying Questions
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Tue Sep 23 18:46:50 UTC 2014
Dear ALAC members,
following up on my earlier message to the list concerning the ICANN
Enhancing Accountability Plan, as well as my update on today's ALAC
call, please be so kind to find a proposal from the Registry
Constituency with a follow-up set of points.
Since the ALAC has not so far drafted any text for the Public Comment
period which we have displayed on https://community.icann.org/x/7g3xAg
may I suggest that we consider supporting the points made below?
As the closing date for this public comment is this Saturday, I would
ideally like to hear your concerns in the next 24H and if there are no
objections, it would be worth considering conducting an ALAC vote on a
Statement that takes those points.
Looking forward to your kind feedback.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RE: Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN
Accountabitliy Plan -- Clarifying Questions
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:57:23 +0000
From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
Quick update. Per my note below, here are the RySG’s proposed procedural
adjustments related to #2 below. This is also still under discussion,
but I wanted to share.
The proposed plan requires further procedural clarification regarding
the final stage of ICANN Board acceptance, referral or rejection of
consensus recommendations delivered by community via Coordinating Group
(CG). We include the following as procedural enhancements that would
enhance confidence and predictability:
1. The process must assume that the Board will accept all community
recommendations delivered by the Coordinating Group (CG) unless a
legal conflict is identified and confirmed by independent experts
chosen by the community.
2. There will be regular checkpoints between the CG and the ICANN
Board, Staff and General Counsel to identify any procedural or legal
concerns prior to delivery of recommendation.
3. In the unlikely event the Board cannot accept a recommendation it
may not simply reject it. It must send it back to the CG for further
4. Referral of any recommendation back to the CG shall require a
unanimous Board vote.
5. Any referral must take place within a reasonable timeframe to allow
for dialogue and resolution and to prevent conflict with the 9/2015
target date for IANA stewardship transition.
6. All Board meetings, teleconferences, discussions and email on the
Accountability issue must be open, including exchanges with the
ICANN General Council, the Board liaison, Staff liaison and other
I welcome your views on the above.
*Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 10:30 AM
*To:* Byron Holland; Heather Dryden; tony holmes; Michele Neylon ::
Blacknight; elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com; krosette at cov.com;
rafik.dammak at gmail.com; William Drake; Jonathan Robinson; Patrik
Fältström; liman at netnod.se; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
*Subject:* Fwd: Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN
Accountabitliy Plan -- Clarifying Questions
I'm sure you're all reviewing and assessing ICANN's response to our
September 3 letter. As you know, the public comment deadline is this
coming Saturday, so time is very short to submit any recommended
adjustments to ICANN's proposed process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
I feel strongly that the only chance we, the community, have to
constructively amend this process is to stick together and continue to
present a united front...as we have for the last 2 months.
The RySG is working to finalize the few key adjustments or
clarifications we think are necessary for our support of (and trust in)
the process. Our current thinking is included below for your consideration.
Can you please respond to this message and share your respective group's
plans and your preliminary views? Can we try to align our
recommendations to come up with another joint statement, or at least
identify a baseline of recommendations that would receive full support?
Following ICANN's response to our September 3 letter, here are the
RySG's current views (still under discussion):
1. The 7 Advisors must be advisory only. We welcome the use of expert
advisors to inform the work of the Coordinating Group and the Community
Working Group, but they should not participate in determining consensus.
These advisors are being hand-picked by a group of 4 individuals who
were hand-picked by the ICANN CEO. I'm sure everyone recalls that their
original plan was to have the Board's Governance Committee appoint the
advisors directly and the original cutoff for nominations was September
10. We believe the appointment of these experts is, at least in part,
designed to narrow the scope of the community's discussions and
recommendation. As such, they should be limited to only providing advice
and not be permitted to dilute the community's influence in the
Coordinating Group or its role in recommending the final accountability
enhancements. If they are advisory only, the community's SO-AC-SG
representatives will retain appropriate influence or control over the
2. There must be a predictable and agreed-to process for handling any
instance where the Board does not accept a consensus recommendation from
the Coordinating Group. ICANN's response saying that the Board's
interests are the same as the community interests completely misses the
fact that their fiduciary responsibility is to the California-based
not-for-profit corporation first, and to the community's interests
second. As such, we the community need to have confidence in the
end-game scenario where the ICANN General Counsel's office tells the
Board it cannot or should not accept a consensus recommendation from the
Coordinating Group. Ideally this situation will not arise, but we need
to prepare for it and have confidence that the Board will not simply be
able to reject or selectively accept the CG's recommendations. We are
still working on the details of a recommended process, but it will be
similar to the proposed language that was edited out from our September
3 letter (because it was a recommendation and not a question).
I believe these are the two most critical adjustments we will require to
be able to support ICANN staff's proposed process. We originally called
for a traditional CCWG and that call was rejected by ICANN because,
apparently, a CCWG did not easily allow for the participation of
external parties. They also wanted to bring in the external experts as
discussed above. Setting aside their motivations for doing so, we
believe these two adjustments are critical for establishing a process we
I hope we can come to a common position on fixing this process. I'm sure
we're all ready to begin the substantive work of identifying meaningful
More information about the ALAC