Oh there is another one called PAF? May I know what that means please (lots of acronyms). That said, I am of the following opinion:
- I don't see any need for such mini groups
- A community forum should indeed be a forum and open to all those interested and not for representatives.
- Such forum should hold during 1 of the ICANN public meetings to remove any cost implications
- The need to exercise any community power should be based on the statements made by each community (after consultation with their respective communities, who would have participated in the community forum).
- Such statements could then trigger a ccwg(that basically consists of the existing community leaders), who then compile high-level views on an issue to serve as the consensus voice of the entire community
- The action/inaction of the board on such single statement would determine whether certain community powers would then be implemented.

Overall, the current way of communicating individual SO/AC views to the board needs to be maintained and the need to have a single view that could lead to exercising community powers should be an act of escalation.

What i have written above may not be a desirable solution but my point is for us to avoid de-fragmenting the community unnecessarily as it could increase likelihood of capture and reduce diversity of views.

On 27 Jul 2015 9:28 am, "Matthew Shears" <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:

Hi

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....

cheers
Jordan

On 26 July 2015 at 06:54, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:

And a bunch of comments from me.

Alan

At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:

Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. IÃ¢€™ve made a few proposed red-lined editsits in the attached, supported by comments. Happy to discuss further.

Regards,

Keith

From: wp1-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter

Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM

To: wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community

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
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community