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

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear Seun,

just a few points:

On 15/12/2015 05:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> - 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.
>

ICANN performs some tasks which some Governments have said should be
performed by Governments. The current emphasis on Human Rights is such
that corporations and non-profits that have a strong public interest
component and that perform such tasks incorporate Human Rights text.
There is a cross community working party that has worked for over a year
on this and the idea has gone a long way from when it was first
mentioned. It is a side issue - let's not be the Advisory Committee that
takes position against this.

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

+1 sharp eye!

> - 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 scenario that ICANN would starve IANA of funds is ludicrous, IMHO.
It would play against ICANN since IANA would not be able to perform its
functions correctly, thus triggering an IANA functions Review, with a
possible end point that IANA gets separated from ICANN. This is yet
another example of a Community gone wild on stupid scenarios.


> - 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)
>

Interesting and very valid point. the question is: if an SO or AC does
not support removing the entire Board, are they allowed to keep their
Board member on the Board? If not, then how could an SO or AC accept
that the Director they selected to be dismissed without their approval?
Kindest regards,

Olivier