[ALAC] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan -- Clarifying Questions

Wed Sep 24 12:13:16 UTC 2014

Will not be on skype until around start of 1st 
teleconference at or near 14:00 utc today.

At 24/09/2014 06:45 AM, Raf Fatani wrote:
>Hi Alan,
>
>I think I was a little unclear here - I think 
>I’ll Skype you separately to clarify and discuss this further.
>
>Regards,
>
>Raf
>On 23 Sep 2014, at 20:12, Raf Fatani <raf at sasiconsult.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the statement is good, however I do 
> think we need to put an ALAC twist to it and use this to our advantage.
> >
> > I note that point (5) in their statement 
> refers to a timely response to CG, so maybe we 
> can attach a point similar to that of the one 
> we made in the statement regarding the proposed 
> bylaw changes regarding GAC advice, and suggest 
> that this has not been followed up in the past 
> (Referring to the ATRT2 recommended regarding the revision process).
> >
> > ALAC must be at the heart of ICANNs 
> accountability, and we must not be used as a 
> tool to serve the board only. I am sorry if I 
> am stepping on toes here, but maybe it’s time 
> to put some teeth into this issue.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Raf
> >
> > Rafid A Y Fatani Eng. MA. Ph.D. (Exon)
> > Policy and Stakeholder Relations Director
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Disclaimer
> >
> > This message and its attachments are 
> confidential and may be privileged or otherwise 
> protected from disclosure. If you are not the 
> intended recipient or the person responsible 
> for delivering the message to the intended 
> recipient, please email the sender and delete 
> this message and any attachments from your 
> system. Further, you should not disclose, copy, 
> distribute or use this message and any attachments.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
> >> ALAC Chair
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- 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>
> >> To:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>   engagement.
> >> 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
> >>   ICANN staff.
> >>
> >> I welcome your views on the above.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Keith
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *From:*Drazek, Keith
> >> *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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >> eventual recommendation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >> can trust.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >> accountability enhancements.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Keith
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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)