I concur with Steve. This is a very important requirement. Not only did it have broad support during the public comment period but it's simple common sense: for advice to have any value to the Board the reasoning behind the advice needs to be provided. A simple "we don't like it" is of little value, although if provided as a rationale the lack of depth of the reasoning would perhaps speak for itself. I view this as a part of the greater transparency we are striving for in all things ICANN. Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 4:36 PM To: "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading) Mathieu - Regarding formal advice from any Advisory Committee (AC), many commenters reiterated that a rationale should be a requirement for advice to be considered by the board. (BC, NPOC, Google, USCIB, RySG, Valideus, the US Chamber, RrSG, NCUC, I2C, Intel, IPC) It's not enough to require that each AC "will make every effort". From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date: Monday, January 18, 2016 at 3:10 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, Mike Chartier <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading) Mike, Good catch indeed. Precisely the point of our first reading exercise. So we will add this to recommendation 11 agenda item tomorrow. I will note that the current annex includes a related recommendation : · Insert a mention for all ACs: "The AC will make every effort to ensure that the advice provided is clear and supported by a rationale." Best, Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Greg Shatan Envoyé : lundi 18 janvier 2016 05:30 À : Chartier, Mike S Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading) Mike, Good point and good catch. This should not have been overlooked. Greg On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote: I think this is another illustration of how we need to be careful in documenting the process for handling comments (other than the Boards). For Recommendation 11 several commenters offered the proposal to add a requirement for GAC advice to be accompanied by a rationale. Given the general acceptance of proposals for rationales in other areas, I would have thought it would have at least been given a note in the prep document. Look forward to discussing on Tues. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 12:01 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading) Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs In preparation for your Recommendation 11 - GAC Advice (first reading) discussion scheduled for your call #78 - Tuesday, 19 January 2016 (12:00 - 15:00 UTC) - please find attached the material to review. Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in advance of the call. Thank you Mathieu, Thomas, León _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community