[ALAC] ACTION: Draft of the ALAC comments to be sent to the CCWG

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Alan,

To avoid repeating what may have been already said, is it possible to see
the current updated draft i.e The version you intend to present to ccwg?
Also I do hope that there will still be opportunity to review beyond the
ccwg meeting.

That said, a few comments on your draft below(again at the fear of
repetition):

- Spelling/grammatical checks needs to be done. Which I think Tim may have
done justice to

- line 93: Supporting inclusion of human rights in the bylaw is too strong
a statement. I'd suggest that it be conditioned on seeing the actual bylaw
text. Maybe we should even ask ourselves whether any form of human rights
text be included in the bylaw? If I were to answer, my response will be
that; for a technical organisation like ICANN, I'd say NO.

- We did not indicate support/against for some of the recommendations? Is
this just focusing on where we have issues? as I thought we should state
our stand for all the recommendations, even if it's just 1 line of support.

- I support the observation made by Olivier on budget veto and I believe it
should be included.

Other comments on the proposal:

- As usual, I still have huge concern on the ability for appointing SO/AC
to remove its board member.

- The ability for anyone(except the originator) to petition a bylaw
implementation that results from PDP is IMO absurd as it seem quite top
down. However I can live with it but suggest that the requirement for
originating PDP support be moved to the "triggering review of petition"
layer instead of "power exercising layer" in the escalation process(para76)

- Removal of nomcom appointed board member should have same threshold of 4
support and not 3 as currently stated in row 107 (para90)

- I know there was CWG requirement to veto ICANN budget, I really wonder if
that included the IANA budget as well. So I am really concerned by the
current wording of Para153/154. I mean, is there any reason why IANA would
be made to lack funding considering this is the actual technical work of
ICANN? I fear those paras if effected could have unintended consequences.
The IANA serves not just the numbers community!

- The threshold for removing entire board has to be absolute! i.e 5/5 and
when it's 4 participating then it should be 4/4; if we are going to break
the organisation, we should all take the responsibility. (Para176-181)

- Which work stream 1 is referred to in para267? Perhaps we need to clarify
when work stream 1 ends and when 2 commence as I think that paragraph may
be misplaced in its current form.

- Aside the overreaching discussion on "consensus requirement" GAC as an AC
has been given more recognition by the virtue of having a formal board
threshold to reject their advice. This in my view further gives
formality/attention to GAC advice by the board. In view of this, I believe
ALAC should request a former commitment from board to give our advice more
attention as well. I don't know how we can say this in the comment period
(without causing any uproar). Para274/5

Regards

"Sent from my handheld, do pardon any mistype ;-)"
On Dec 14, 2015 7:29 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> The IANA Issues WG met on Friday to discuss possible issue on the
> CCWG-Accountability 3rd draft proposal.
>
> The CCWG documents can be founds at
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56145016.
>
> The document discussed at the IANA-Issues meeting can be found linked to
> the Agenda Item 3 of https://community.icann.org/x/PIdlAw (entitled *Review
> of Proposal and Potential ALAC Positions*).
>
> We need to send a summary of our comments to the CCWG today (in time for a
> CCWG meeting on Tuesday at 06:00 UTC). The attached document summarizes the
> issues as modified by the discussion during the teleconference.
>
> Please send any comments in sufficient time for me to integrate them (as
> appropriate) into the documents. In particular, is there anything here that
> is counter to the tone or detail of the discussion?
>
> The Final Public Comment must be submitted no later than 21 December. It
> will no doubt closely follow the attached document, but may well include
> other issues that come to light over the next days.
>
> As ALL ALAC member will be asked to vote on the Public Comments and will
> ultimately have to decide whether to ratify the CCWG Proposal, this is both
> important and time-sensitive.
>
> To the extent that is possible and you feel appropriate, please involve
> your RALOs.
>
> Alan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20151215/0f17dd0f/attachment.html>