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

Tue Dec 15 04:53:19 UTC 2015

At 14/12/2015 11:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

>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.

I will re-word to say we support the proposed text as opposed to 
simply saying we support HR in Bylaws. Thanks for catching that. We 
can talk about whether we wantto withdraw that support at the 
IANA-Issues talk tomorrow.

>- 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.

The formal comment will follow the template and give our position for 
each recommendation (as my PPT did). This is just the problem areas.

For the rest, we can discuss tomorrow at the IANA-Issues call, but 
see my comments below. We REALLY need to focus on issues that will 
prevent us from ratifying, not just tweak the proposal.

>- 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.

I think we are beyond that now. Even the Board is agreeing...

>- 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)

The Board has proposed re-wording to clarify exactly what the process 
is. I cannot see making a big fuss about at what point the SO 
originating the PDP can effectively kill this power being exercised. 
There are SO many things in both the CWG and CCWG which could have 
been done cleaner, but that is the by-product of MS and compromise.

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

Do we really want to re-open this one?

>- 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!

It was a requirement. This has also been raised by the Board.

>- 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)

I note that we did not require 100% in the 2nd draft.

>- 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.

There is only one WS1. It ends when we issue the final proposal in a 
couple of weeks.

>- 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

There is already an ATRT recommendation that has been accepted that 
somewhat strenthens out position. In my mind, there is no way to 
re-open that discussion now.

>Regards
>
>"Sent from my handheld, do pardon any mistype ;-)"
>On Dec 14, 2015 7:29 AM, "Alan Greenberg" 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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>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>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
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>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/20151214/ea069602/attachment.html>