Expanding the GAC-oriented review in the AoC Accountability & Transparency Review
On yesterday’s CCWG call, we reviewed Recommendation 10 – SO/AC Accountability (latest doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%2010%20-%20SOA...>). I suggested one way to improve the community’s review of GAC-oriented activities lies in the AoC’s Accountability and Transparency Review (known as ATRT). Here is the suggested edit [in red and brackets] to the AoC’s ATRT Review (Annex 9<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%209%20-%20AOC%...> para 85): (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS If this is acceptable to CCWG, we should amend Annex 9 para 85 as above. It might also be helpful to note the GAC-oriented review in Annex 10<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%2010%20-%20SOA...>, under para 3 for Work Stream 1. As in: “The periodic review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency required under the Affirmation of Commitments is being incorporated into ICANN bylaws as part of Work Stream 1. In Recommendation 9 and Annex 9, the Accountability and Transparency Review will include this among issues that merit attention in the review: (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS
Dear Steve This would change the disappointment of GAC. There is the tis that GAC COULD CONSIDER POSSIBLE REJECTION OF REC.11 Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Jan 2016, at 16:12, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
On yesterday’s CCWG call, we reviewed Recommendation 10 – SO/AC Accountability (latest doc).
I suggested one way to improve the community’s review of GAC-oriented activities lies in the AoC’s Accountability and Transparency Review (known as ATRT).
Here is the suggested edit [in red and brackets] to the AoC’s ATRT Review (Annex 9 para 85):
(b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS If this is acceptable to CCWG, we should amend Annex 9 para 85 as above. It might also be helpful to note the GAC-oriented review in Annex 10, under para 3 for Work Stream 1. As in:
“The periodic review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency required under the Affirmation of Commitments is being incorporated into ICANN bylaws as part of Work Stream 1. In Recommendation 9 and Annex 9, the Accountability and Transparency Review will include this among issues that merit attention in the review:
(b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kavouss, The text below merely suggests what the Accountability & Transparency Review could look at, with respect to effectiveness of GAC interactions. Several months ago, you were part of the group who helped us avoid any suggestion that ATRT look at the effectiveness of the GAC itself, which is the AoC<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-...> section 9.1 today: (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS; I believe you suggested we change it to look only at effectiveness of INTERACTION with the GAC, and the red bracket text was then added on yesterday’s call: (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS With that clarification, I hope you would support the change. This has nothing to do with Rec 11, as you see. Best, Steve From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 11:50 AM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> 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] Expanding the GAC-oriented review in the AoC Accountability & Transparency Review Dear Steve This would change the disappointment of GAC. There is the tis that GAC COULD CONSIDER POSSIBLE REJECTION OF REC.11 Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 29 Jan 2016, at 16:12, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: On yesterday’s CCWG call, we reviewed Recommendation 10 – SO/AC Accountability (latest doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%2010%20-%20SOA...>). I suggested one way to improve the community’s review of GAC-oriented activities lies in the AoC’s Accountability and Transparency Review (known as ATRT). Here is the suggested edit [in red and brackets] to the AoC’s ATRT Review (Annex 9<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%209%20-%20AOC%...> para 85): (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS If this is acceptable to CCWG, we should amend Annex 9 para 85 as above. It might also be helpful to note the GAC-oriented review in Annex 10<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%2010%20-%20SOA...>, under para 3 for Work Stream 1. As in: “The periodic review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency required under the Affirmation of Commitments is being incorporated into ICANN bylaws as part of Work Stream 1. In Recommendation 9 and Annex 9, the Accountability and Transparency Review will include this among issues that merit attention in the review: (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS _______________________________________________ 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
Good ideas. I would support these minor amendments. --MM I suggested one way to improve the community’s review of GAC-oriented activities lies in the AoC’s Accountability and Transparency Review (known as ATRT). Here is the suggested edit [in red and brackets] to the AoC’s ATRT Review (Annex 9<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%209%20-%20AOC%...> para 85): (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS If this is acceptable to CCWG, we should amend Annex 9 para 85 as above. It might also be helpful to note the GAC-oriented review in Annex 10<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%2010%20-%20SOA...>, under para 3 for Work Stream 1. As in: “The periodic review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency required under the Affirmation of Commitments is being incorporated into ICANN bylaws as part of Work Stream 1. In Recommendation 9 and Annex 9, the Accountability and Transparency Review will include this among issues that merit attention in the review: (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS
Sounds good to me. Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 29.01.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>: Good ideas. I would support these minor amendments. --MM I suggested one way to improve the community’s review of GAC-oriented activities lies in the AoC’s Accountability and Transparency Review (known as ATRT). Here is the suggested edit [in red and brackets] to the AoC’s ATRT Review (Annex 9<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%209%20-%20AOC%...> para 85): (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS If this is acceptable to CCWG, we should amend Annex 9 para 85 as above. It might also be helpful to note the GAC-oriented review in Annex 10<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%2010%20-%20SOA...>, under para 3 for Work Stream 1. As in: “The periodic review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency required under the Affirmation of Commitments is being incorporated into ICANN bylaws as part of Work Stream 1. In Recommendation 9 and Annex 9, the Accountability and Transparency Review will include this among issues that merit attention in the review: (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS _______________________________________________ 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 Steve, I have no particular problem with your text. Pls consider my suggestion for status quo as now being supportzed by several GAC HAVE SUPPORTED that. One colleagues mentioned that " NO CHANGE" is not an option. That claim is not true. For years many entities including US Governmentinsisted that " NO CHANGE" is a valid OPTION .There has been agreed so since 1995 . I have no option but to push for that alternative. We are happy with current situation which hasworked well which seems more neutral than Stress Test 18 which is detrimental to the GAC since one single Government could block the GAC cionsensus thus GAC could never ever acheive any consensus if that single Govermnet insist on its opposition to the emerging consensus. St 18 IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PROCESS ,IN PARTICULAR, ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO PUBLIC Policy. I can not / would like to further explain the detrimental consequencwe of ST18. Please kindly include this alternative now siupported by several GAC members as a workable option in your REC.11 Regards Kavouss 2016-01-29 19:16 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Sounds good to me. Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 29.01.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>:
Good ideas. I would support these minor amendments. --MM
I suggested one way to improve the community’s review of GAC-oriented activities lies in the AoC’s Accountability and Transparency Review (known as ATRT).
Here is the suggested edit [in red and brackets] to the AoC’s ATRT Review (Annex 9< https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%209%20-%20AOC%...> para 85):
(b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS If this is acceptable to CCWG, we should amend Annex 9 para 85 as above. It might also be helpful to note the GAC-oriented review in Annex 10< https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%2010%20-%20SOA...>, under para 3 for Work Stream 1. As in:
“The periodic review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency required under the Affirmation of Commitments is being incorporated into ICANN bylaws as part of Work Stream 1. In Recommendation 9 and Annex 9, the Accountability and Transparency Review will include this among issues that merit attention in the review:
(b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS _______________________________________________ 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
Stress Test 18 reflects the status quo, and a concern about the effect of changes to the status quo. The proposed bylaw change responsive to Stress Test 18 would maintain the status quo (as it applies to the Board's consideration of GAC advice with the obligation to find a mutually acceptable solution where an inconsistent action is proposed). Making no change to the Bylaw leaves open the possibility that the status quo will change. Right now, the GAC delivers advice decided on the basis of strong support and the lack of a formal objection, and if the Board decides to take an action inconsistent with that advice and formally approves that action (by majority vote), then the Board and GAC must try to come to a mutually acceptable resolution. That's the status quo. And I suspect that Bylaw changes to maintain that status quo would get strong support from a broad group of stakeholders. On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Steve, I have no particular problem with your text. Pls consider my suggestion for status quo as now being supportzed by several GAC HAVE SUPPORTED that. One colleagues mentioned that " NO CHANGE" is not an option. That claim is not true. For years many entities including US Governmentinsisted that " NO CHANGE" is a valid OPTION .There has been agreed so since 1995 . I have no option but to push for that alternative. We are happy with current situation which hasworked well which seems more neutral than Stress Test 18 which is detrimental to the GAC since one single Government could block the GAC cionsensus thus GAC could never ever acheive any consensus if that single Govermnet insist on its opposition to the emerging consensus. St 18 IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PROCESS ,IN PARTICULAR, ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO PUBLIC Policy. I can not / would like to further explain the detrimental consequencwe of ST18. Please kindly include this alternative now siupported by several GAC members as a workable option in your REC.11 Regards Kavouss
2016-01-29 19:16 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Sounds good to me. Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 29.01.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>:
Good ideas. I would support these minor amendments. --MM
I suggested one way to improve the community’s review of GAC-oriented activities lies in the AoC’s Accountability and Transparency Review (known as ATRT).
Here is the suggested edit [in red and brackets] to the AoC’s ATRT Review (Annex 9< https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%209%20-%20AOC%...> para 85):
(b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS If this is acceptable to CCWG, we should amend Annex 9 para 85 as above. It might also be helpful to note the GAC-oriented review in Annex 10< https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/Rec%2010%20-%20SOA...>, under para 3 for Work Stream 1. As in:
“The periodic review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency required under the Affirmation of Commitments is being incorporated into ICANN bylaws as part of Work Stream 1. In Recommendation 9 and Annex 9, the Accountability and Transparency Review will include this among issues that merit attention in the review:
(b) assessing the role and effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board [and with the broader ICANN community], and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (5)
-
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mueller, Milton L -
Steve DelBianco