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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Sep 24 05:51:26 UTC 2014


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)



More information about the ALAC mailing list