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<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Monday, January 18, 2016 at 3:10 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Mike Chartier <mike.s.chartier@intel.com<mailto:mike.s.chartier@intel.com>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, Rationale is a general term Could someone kindly describe what does it mean or what is its scope of application in the context of ICANN by providing some practical example See also below Tom Dale [image: Pièces jointes]09:57 (Il y a 7 heures) À *Finn*, *Mark*, *Olga*, *Jorge.Cancio*, *Julia*, *Sabine.Meyer*, *Pedro*, *Suzanne*, *Alice*, *Pär*, *gac*, moi Dear All In any discussion of Advisory Committees (including GAC) providing a rationale for their advice, you may wish to note the GAC report to the Board of 8 May 2015 (here <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/schneider-to-crocker-08...>) in which the following response to a relevant ATRT2 Recommendation was provided: *ATRT2 Recommendation 6.3. *ATRT2 recommends that the Board work jointly with the GAC, through the BGRI, to facilitate the GAC developing and publishing rationales for GAC Advice at the time Advice is provided. Such rationales should be recorded in the GAC register. The register should also include a record of how the ICANN Board responded to each item of advice. *GAC Response*: Being Implemented. The rationale for GAC advice in Communiqués has been made clearer through continuous improvement of the wording of the Communiqué itself, including attachments where appropriate; holding of open meeting sessions as the default; and publication of transcripts and Minutes. The rationale for other GAC advice in the form of inter-sessional correspondence is made as clear as possible in the correspondence itself. The GAC Register of Advice could be made clearer and more accessible and this is being addressed. GAC Open Forums at face-to-face meetings are an opportunity for the community to seek further clarification from GAC on processes. The GAC will: · Continue working with ICANN staff to improve the GAC Register of Advice, including a record of how the ICANN Board responded to each item of advice. · Ensure that the GAC website review addresses the intent of this recommendation. · Consider further options for explaining its advice at face-to-face meetings and in writing. Regards Tom Dale ACIG GAC Secretariat 2016-01-18 17:17 GMT+01:00 Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>:
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 <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 R*ecommendation 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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
Dear All, I WE COULD QUICKLY AND SIMPLY RESOLVE 7 ADDRESS THE ISSUE I HAVE NO PROBLEM GAC had always provided such reasons/ Rationale.. My anxiety is we strat a big round of discussions among those who are so knoweedgeable in evry and all areas that we may not get out of it. Regards Kavouss 2016-01-18 18:03 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>:
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 <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 R*ecommendation 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Mathieu, That recommendation ("every effort") is inadequate and frankly, bizarre. Under what circumstances could an AC make "every effort" and still fail to provide a rationale? If an AC makes "every effort" to develop a rationale and still fails, what does that tell us about the recommendation? That no rational support can be found for it? That the AC can agree on the result but not the rationale? That the AC would rather not state the rationale? For those who say that the GAC already offers rationales for their recommendations -- if those rationales were considered satisfactory, this issue would not have been raised in the first place. If necessary, we can go back to specific items of advice, and the rationales or lack thereof; but I don't know that we have the time to engage in such an exercise. For one, I recall that in the .africa IRP concerns were raised about the lack of a sufficiently-stated rationale. If the GAC is looking for greater parity with GNSO PDP policy recommendations, the documentation accompanying those recommendations should serve as a guide. It is heartening to hear that the GAC is already working on improving their communication the rationales for their advice. As such, we all seem to be moving in the same direction. With that in mind, there should be no real issue with removing the squishy "every effort" loophole and stating an unqualified requirement for a rationale for all AC advice. Greg On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
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 <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 R*ecommendation 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
I agree that we need to remove the “every effort” language, which is indeed a loophole.. A rationale should be provided by the AC. Period. Next issue. Thanks, Robin
On Jan 18, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Mathieu,
That recommendation ("every effort") is inadequate and frankly, bizarre. Under what circumstances could an AC make "every effort" and still fail to provide a rationale? If an AC makes "every effort" to develop a rationale and still fails, what does that tell us about the recommendation? That no rational support can be found for it? That the AC can agree on the result but not the rationale? That the AC would rather not state the rationale?
For those who say that the GAC already offers rationales for their recommendations -- if those rationales were considered satisfactory, this issue would not have been raised in the first place. If necessary, we can go back to specific items of advice, and the rationales or lack thereof; but I don't know that we have the time to engage in such an exercise. For one, I recall that in the .africa IRP concerns were raised about the lack of a sufficiently-stated rationale. If the GAC is looking for greater parity with GNSO PDP policy recommendations, the documentation accompanying those recommendations should serve as a guide.
It is heartening to hear that the GAC is already working on improving their communication the rationales for their advice. As such, we all seem to be moving in the same direction.
With that in mind, there should be no real issue with removing the squishy "every effort" loophole and stating an unqualified requirement for a rationale for all AC advice.
Greg
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: 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 <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Monday, January 18, 2016 at 3:10 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Mike Chartier <mike.s.chartier@intel.com <mailto:mike.s.chartier@intel.com>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+ 1 On 18/01/2016 20:00, Robin Gross wrote:
I agree that we need to remove the “every effort” language, which is indeed a loophole.. A rationale should be provided by the AC. Period. Next issue.
Thanks, Robin
On Jan 18, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Mathieu,
That recommendation ("every effort") is inadequate and frankly, bizarre. Under what circumstances could an AC make "every effort" and still fail to provide a rationale? If an AC makes "every effort" to develop a rationale and still fails, what does that tell us about the recommendation? That no rational support can be found for it? That the AC can agree on the result but not the rationale? That the AC would rather not state the rationale?
For those who say that the GAC already offers rationales for their recommendations -- if those rationales were considered satisfactory, this issue would not have been raised in the first place. If necessary, we can go back to specific items of advice, and the rationales or lack thereof; but I don't know that we have the time to engage in such an exercise. For one, I recall that in the .africa IRP concerns were raised about the lack of a sufficiently-stated rationale. If the GAC is looking for greater parity with GNSO PDP policy recommendations, the documentation accompanying those recommendations should serve as a guide.
It is heartening to hear that the GAC is already working on improving their communication the rationales for their advice. As such, we all seem to be moving in the same direction.
With that in mind, there should be no real issue with removing the squishy "every effort" loophole and stating an unqualified requirement for a rationale for all AC advice.
Greg
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote:
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 <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Monday, January 18, 2016 at 3:10 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Mike Chartier <mike.s.chartier@intel.com <mailto:mike.s.chartier@intel.com>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto: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> [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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 R/ecommendation 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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Agree that a rationale must be provided, every time. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 3:05 PM To: Robin Gross; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading) + 1 On 18/01/2016 20:00, Robin Gross wrote: I agree that we need to remove the "every effort" language, which is indeed a loophole.. A rationale should be provided by the AC. Period. Next issue. Thanks, Robin On Jan 18, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Mathieu, That recommendation ("every effort") is inadequate and frankly, bizarre. Under what circumstances could an AC make "every effort" and still fail to provide a rationale? If an AC makes "every effort" to develop a rationale and still fails, what does that tell us about the recommendation? That no rational support can be found for it? That the AC can agree on the result but not the rationale? That the AC would rather not state the rationale? For those who say that the GAC already offers rationales for their recommendations -- if those rationales were considered satisfactory, this issue would not have been raised in the first place. If necessary, we can go back to specific items of advice, and the rationales or lack thereof; but I don't know that we have the time to engage in such an exercise. For one, I recall that in the .africa IRP concerns were raised about the lack of a sufficiently-stated rationale. If the GAC is looking for greater parity with GNSO PDP policy recommendations, the documentation accompanying those recommendations should serve as a guide. It is heartening to hear that the GAC is already working on improving their communication the rationales for their advice. As such, we all seem to be moving in the same direction. With that in mind, there should be no real issue with removing the squishy "every effort" loophole and stating an unqualified requirement for a rationale for all AC advice. Greg On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: 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<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Monday, January 18, 2016 at 3:10 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Mike Chartier <mike.s.chartier@intel.com<mailto:mike.s.chartier@intel.com>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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: <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987 [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...>
Steve,
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.
During my brief involvement with one AC, not the GAC, nor the SSAC, nor the RSSAC, it was evident that that AC's ability to do much more than respond to proposals arising elsewhere was lacking. Granted, there are issues with funding for many participatory portions of the ByLaws entities, and there are issues with focus as well. However, in a less than perfect system, a rational for not setting one's hair afire is effort wasted. The consumer of "advice" from any AC is the Board, which should not need any rational beyond the barest statement of "do X" or "don't do X" to begin consideration of whether or not to under take "X", and, should the Board require, it can ask for the rational(s) for the advice offered. If what you're looking for is pleading to the peanut galleries, some text addressed to readers not being advised, say Kieren's readers, this really is someone else's PR problem. Don't sneak extra cost on a system composed primarily of volunteers (and governments) as this necessarily reduces the efficacy of those, generally to the benefit of lobbyists and their clients, who have material interest in outcomes, and who form, as the AoC observed, "a group of participants that engage in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than Internet users generally." Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon P.S. The absurdity of the "many commenters" wishes for a "required rational" is immediately apparent when the advice originates from the RSSAC or SSAC, as that advice is not offered to the common reader (pace Ms. Woolf), but to the Board, who are, or who are supported by, readers with clue.
participants (8)
-
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Matthew Shears -
Robin Gross -
Steve DelBianco