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

Wed Sep 24 12:20:09 UTC 2014

Dear all,

I have concerns with point 4 as what Alan has said is true.

Maybe it could be added something like 3/4 of board members? I suggest
this because if a board member should abstain for whatever reason,
then we wouldn't have unanimous voting.

Does that make sense? Happy to clarify if not clear enough.

Best regards,

León

Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 24/09/2014, a las 1:12, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> escribió:
>
> I support much of what the RySG has put together. I particularly support the concept of saying something relatively short and concise. And upon reflection, Keith is dead right about presenting a unified front. We have NEVER seen an ICANN reaction to a community statement such as that in response to the letter presented in Istanbul. With the comment period that started within hours, and the letter from Fadi - far from sufficiently detailed, but it effectively accepted the community's right to challenge the process.
>
> A few comments though:
>
> Point 4 is a Catch-22 requirement. If the Board does not vote to accept a recommendation (by whatever threshold is decided is needed), but not every Board member ddecides to remand to the CG, there is a deadlock and no way out.
>
> I support point 6, but find it highly unlikely to be accepted in full. And there is no way to ensure that there are not off-the-record "unofficial" discussions. I would far prefer something that might be softer but both acceptable and enforceable.
>
> Of lesser importance, I think that the original point 1 on advisors being just that, advisors, could be strengthened by pointing out how large a fraction of the overall CG the advisor group constitutes. (I am pretty sure that sentence is not grammatically correct, but hope the idea comes through.)
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> At 23/09/2014 02:46 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> 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)