[ALAC] Board Comments on CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal

Tue Dec 15 23:04:31 UTC 2015

Dear ALAC and RALO Chairs,

I had shared the attached presentation slides outlining Board Comments on
CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal during the At-Large IANA Issues Working Group Call
on Tue UTC2030. Please review the full Board comments as there is more
information and detail there (also attached together with cover letter from
Steve Crocker on behalf of the Board).  The concerns, rationale and
suggestions in the full Board Comments document are important to
understand.  Please note that the Board is open to alternative solutions on
how to address the concerns.

*Some points that I highlighted during the call:*

The Board comments dated 14 Dec 2015 are directed at the SOs/ACs for
consideration in their capacity as chartering organizations of the
accountability initiative as well as at the CCWG on Accountability.

The comments represent the_full_consensus view of the Board.

The Board expresses support and agreement for nearly all the
recommendations.

However, there are remaining concerns and these concerns are consistent
with concerns that the Board had raised in the past.

For concerns that are considered as “serious” for the Board, if they are
not sufficiently addressed in the CCWG’s Final Report, the Board would
follow the principles and procedure laid out in its Resolution of 16
October 2014 (I pasted the text of that resolution below so that you are
aware of what the process entails).

In my view, if we end up with a situation where there is no Board and CCWG
agreement, there is the possibility that we may miss the political window
for the transition.  We need to work to bridge the gap constructively and
in a timely manner.

My understanding is that the Board wants to have a Transition, but it has
duties and responsibilities that require it to consider carefully the
impact of CCWG recommendations on ICANN before agreeing to them.  In
principle, the Board is not able to agree to recommendations that in its
opinion and judgment would endanger, weaken or destabilize ICANN.  Within
the 3rd Draft Proposal, some recommendations are too broad and/or too vague.
This opens the door for unintended consequences or exploitation, which may
unbalance or interrupt the operation of ICANN.  In principle, anything that
creates open-ended obligations would destabilize ICANN and would undermine
ICANN’s ability to do its job.  A stable and functioning ICANN is a
prerequisite for ICANN to carry out its mission and this is the yardstick
for what is considered to be in the global public interest.

*Board Resolution 2014.10.16.17* (emphasis in red and underlined text is
mine)

Resolved (2014.10.16.17), the Board commits to following the following
principles when considering the Cross Community Working Group
Recommendations on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance:

   1. These principles apply to consensus-based recommendations from the
   Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and
   Governance.
   2. If the Board believes it is not in the global public interest to
   implement a recommendation from the Cross Community Working Group on
   Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance (CCWG Recommendation), it
   must initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. A determination that it is not
   in the global public interest to implement a CCWG Recommendation requires a
   2/3 majority of the Board.
   3. The Board must provide detailed rationale to accompany the initiation
   of dialogue. The Board shall agree with the CCWG the method (e.g., by
   teleconference, email or otherwise) by which the dialogue will occur. The
   discussions shall be held in good faith and in a timely and efficient
   manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.
   4. The CCWG will have an opportunity to address the Board's concerns and
   report back to the Board on further deliberations regarding the Board's
   concerns. The CCWG shall discuss the Board's concerns within 30 days of the
   Board's initiation of the dialogue.
   5. If a recommendation is modified through the CCWG, it is returned back
   to the Board for further consideration. The CCWG is to provide detailed
   rationale on how the modification addresses the concerns raised by the
   Board.
   6. If, after modification, the Board still believes the CCWG
   Recommendation is not in the global public interest to implement the CCWG
   Recommendation, the Board may send the item back to the CCWG for further
   consideration, again requiring a 2/3 vote of the Board for that action.
   Detailed rationale for the Board's action is again required. *In the
   event the Board determines not to accept a modification, then the Board
   shall not be entitled to set a solution on the issue addressed by the
   recommendation until such time as CCWG and the Board reach agreement*.

Best regards,

Rinalia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20151216/ce6c7789/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outline of Board Comments on CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal.pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 579461 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20151216/ce6c7789/OutlineofBoardCommentsonCCWG3rdDraftProposal.pptx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 14-DEC-15-Board Comments to CCWG[1][3].pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 283334 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20151216/ce6c7789/14-DEC-15-BoardCommentstoCCWG13.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20151214 Comments on CCWG Report_SCrocker[7]-2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 621764 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20151216/ce6c7789/20151214CommentsonCCWGReport_SCrocker7-2.pdf>