[lac-discuss-en] RV: Board Comments on CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal
vanda at scartezini.org
vanda at scartezini.org
Wed Dec 16 17:42:54 UTC 2015
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: Re: RV: Board Comments on CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal
From: vanda at scartezini.org
It was very useful meeting yesterday who was impossible to meet. Rinalia offered excellent presentations on the points raised by the Board what happened to them as an attachment.
Sugiro reading and that meet one of two calls tomorrow.
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.
From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> "On Behalf Of Alberto Soto
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 9:01 a.m.
To: "lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org> "
Subject: [lac-discuss-en] FW: [ALAC] Board Comments on CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal
Dear, I have a meeting (SO-AC-SG-C-THIN CCWG Leaders and Co-Chairs) on this subject tomorrow. It is highly desirable that we had some additional opinion.
So I Rinalia forwarding this mail.
Just today 16 and tomorrow 17 will be two identical briefings about:
â¢ Wednesday 16 December 2015 at 22:00 UTC for 120 minutes
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/jqn6awh
The phonebook and call details are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/JI1lAw
â¢ Thursday 17 December 2015 at 11:00 GMT for 120 minutes
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/qhn8hfr
The phonebook and call details are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/kI1lAw
Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/atlarge-briefing-session/
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> [Mailto: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On behalf of Abdul Rahim Rinalia
Posted on: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 8:05 pm
To: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> >
CC: iana-issues at atlarge.icann.org <mailto:iana-issues at atlarge.icann.org>
Subject: [ALAC] Board Comments on CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal
Dear ALAC and RALO Chairs,
I had shared the attached slide presentation outlining CCWG 3rd Board Comments on Draft Proposal During The At-Large IANA Working Group Issues 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 document full Board Comments 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 dated 14 Dec 2015 comments are directed at the SOs / ACs for consideration in Their capacity as chartering Organisations 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 Concerns These are consistent With the Board HAD That Concerns 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 So THAT below 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 window for the political transition. We need to work constructively to bridge the gap and in a Timely Manner.
My understanding is That the Board wants to Have a Transition, but it has duties and Responsibilities That requires it to Carefully Consider the impact of CCWG Recommendations on ICANN before agreeing to them. In principle, the Board is not reliable to agree to Recommendations That in Its review 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 Obligations open-ended and would destabilize ICANN would undermine ICANN's Ability to do ITS job. A stable and Functioning ICANN ICANN is a prerequisite for ITS mission to carry out and this is the yardstick for what is Considered to be in the overall 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 the following principles When following 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 overall public interest to Implement a recommendation from the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance (Recommendation CCWG), it must initiate a dialogue With the CCWG.A determination That it is not in the overall public interest to Implement a Recommendation CCWG 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 (eg, 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 CCWG Believes the Recommendation is not in the overall 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 That Board for action.Detailed rationale for the Board's action is again required. In the event the Board Determines not to accept a modification, then a the Board Shall Not Entitled to be a solution in September on the issue addressed by the recommendation Until Such Time as CCWG and the Board reach agreement.
[Avast logo] < https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
Avast antivirus software scanned this email for viruses.
www.avast.com < https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has-been protected by YAC (Yet Another Cleaner) www.yac.mx <http://www.yac.mx?source=email>
[[--Original text (es)
More information about the lac-discuss-en