Agree that having two entities is excessive - that said there are
some differences, as I understand them from the texts/mails:
The ICA is supposed to "
be
a forum where the use of any of the powers is
discussed across the whole ICANN community – before any of the powers are exercised."
And the PAF is "to bring
together board, staff and the SO/ACs in a public exchange of views
and
questions and comments about accountability issues - a sort of open
round
table, done at an ICANN meeting once a year"
The first is about a potential exercising of a community power, the
second is a more general discussion on accountability matters.
One could merge the two, create something with a more
appropriate name such as ICANN Accountability Forum (as assembly
sounds very top down and UN-like) and make it a once a year OR as
appropriate (when a community power is contemplated being used).
Matthew
On 7/26/2015 8:09 PM, Alan Greenberg
wrote:
Replies. Alan
At 25/07/2015 10:53 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
Thank you Keith, Alan
for these
comments. I've attached some comments back on them. All very
helpful.
I'm sorry for the confusion around the Public Accountability
Forum idea.
What I was trying to suggest was that that suggestion be
incorporated in
the ICA so two "things" aren't being created.
From memory, the notion of the Public Accountability Forum was
to bring
together board, staff and the SO/ACs in a public exchange of
views and
questions and comments about accountability issues - a sort of
open round
table, done at an ICANN meeting once a year. The point was to
help build
mutual accountability across the ICANN system, not just vertical
accountability - helping to solve the "who watches the
watchers" conundrum.
This could easily be done under the umbrella of the ICANN
Community
Assembly, perhaps with supplementary attendance or speaking
rights e.g.
for more of the Board, maybe the SO/AC leadership as well.
But creating it as a separate beast seems pointless....
Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. I̢۪ve
made a few
proposed red-lined editsits in the attached, supported
by comments. Happy
to discuss further.
Subject: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
Hi all
I have taken the draft material from an older paper
about the ICANN
Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.
Please see attached and debate away! I've tried to be
clear on
its solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this
would be the
forum to use for the Public Accountability Forum
suggestion made by
advisors a while ago.
best,
Jordan
Content-Type:
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN
CommForum-KD-AG-JC.docx"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN
CommForum-KD-AG-JC.docx"
X-Attachment-Id: f_icjw1ytv2
Content-Type: application/pdf;
name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN
CommForum-KD-AG-JC.pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN
CommForum-KD-AG-JC.pdf"
X-Attachment-Id: f_icjw1yu63