SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017
As discussed on our SOAC team call yesterday, we are nearly finished with our public comment responses<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uAjMUtnaigi5-zSMGmmIbvFNcPxGQC0cMB_a...> and updated recommendation<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sT6SscZLT7VK2rVFOMPaiK1Qd8vlVLkm0boRX7I8...> to the CCWG. One remaining question is whether to add an additional Good Practice to the 28 we already have in our report. The purpose of this email is to hear from all members of SOAC-Accountability as to whether our report should include this new proposed Good Practice: An AC/SO/Group that elects its officers should impose term limits. Note that this proposed Good Practice would only apply to AC/SO/Groups that have elections. And as with all of our Good Practices, we describe applicability in our Executive Summary: In Track 1 we recommend 29 Good Practices that each SO/AC/Group should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required. Nor do we recommend any changes to the ICANN bylaws. We do recommend that Operational Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in the AC/SO subject to the review. And we include this caveat on page 8: "AC/SO/Groups are only expected to implement Good Practices to the extent that these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices, in the view of AC/SO/Group participants. Again, we do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required by AC/SO/Groups.” Please reply to all by 11-Sep with your view on whether we should add Term Limits as a Good Practice.
Hi, My understanding was that the statement being discussed was whether they should consider term limits. I think this is an important difference. And I think that strengthening the statement into something that is easier to disagree with, is unfortunate. I think the act of considering the need for term limits is all that is required. You are right, it is not best for all. But considering whether to impose them or not is a good practice as it gives those who hold positions without term limits who may see no reason for term limits, to be challenged by those out of power who may think they are needed. At this point there is no recommendation that all SOAC/AG/C consider term limits so those who want them may be flat out of luck. I suggest that we avoid change the wording of the recommendation and that we support the recommendation that all entities consider whether they need term limits or not. I personally believe that yes, we should add the consideration of terms limits as a good practice. avri On 08-Sep-17 09:27, Steve DelBianco wrote:
As discussed on our SOAC team call yesterday, we are nearly finished with our public comment responses <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uAjMUtnaigi5-zSMGmmIbvFNcPxGQC0cMB_a...> and updated recommendation <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sT6SscZLT7VK2rVFOMPaiK1Qd8vlVLkm0boRX7I8...> to the CCWG.
One remaining question is whether to add an additional Good Practice to the 28 we already have in our report.
The purpose of this email is to hear from all members of SOAC-Accountability as to whether our report should include this new proposed Good Practice:
*An AC/SO/Group that elects its officers should impose term limits. *
Note that this proposed Good Practice would _only_ apply to AC/SO/Groups that have elections. And as with all of our Good Practices, we describe applicability in our Executive Summary:
In Track 1 we recommend 29 Good Practices that each SO/AC/Group should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required. Nor do we recommend any changes to the ICANN bylaws. We do recommend that Operational Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in the AC/SO subject to the review.
And we include this caveat on page 8:
"AC/SO/Groups are only expected to implement Good Practices to the extent that these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices, in the view of AC/SO/Group participants. Again, we do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required by AC/SO/Groups.”
Please reply to all by 11-Sep with your view on whether we should add Term Limits as a Good Practice.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Avri — we are recommending Good Practices that the group believes are worth implementing (if applicable). None of the other 28 Good Practices suggest to “consider” something to do. All are suggestive that implementation is a good practice, and all our recommendations imply that AC/SO/Groups should therefore “consider" implementation. Steve From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of avri doria <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM To: "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] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017 Hi, My understanding was that the statement being discussed was whether they should consider term limits. I think this is an important difference. And I think that strengthening the statement into something that is easier to disagree with, is unfortunate. I think the act of considering the need for term limits is all that is required. You are right, it is not best for all. But considering whether to impose them or not is a good practice as it gives those who hold positions without term limits who may see no reason for term limits, to be challenged by those out of power who may think they are needed. At this point there is no recommendation that all SOAC/AG/C consider term limits so those who want them may be flat out of luck. I suggest that we avoid change the wording of the recommendation and that we support the recommendation that all entities consider whether they need term limits or not. I personally believe that yes, we should add the consideration of terms limits as a good practice. avri On 08-Sep-17 09:27, Steve DelBianco wrote: As discussed on our SOAC team call yesterday, we are nearly finished with our public comment responses <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uAjMUtnaigi5-zSMGmmIbvFNcPxGQC0cMB_a...> and updated recommendation <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sT6SscZLT7VK2rVFOMPaiK1Qd8vlVLkm0boRX7I8...> to the CCWG. One remaining question is whether to add an additional Good Practice to the 28 we already have in our report. The purpose of this email is to hear from all members of SOAC-Accountability as to whether our report should include this new proposed Good Practice: *An AC/SO/Group that elects its officers should impose term limits. * Note that this proposed Good Practice would _only_ apply to AC/SO/Groups that have elections. And as with all of our Good Practices, we describe applicability in our Executive Summary: In Track 1 we recommend 29 Good Practices that each SO/AC/Group should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required. Nor do we recommend any changes to the ICANN bylaws. We do recommend that Operational Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in the AC/SO subject to the review. And we include this caveat on page 8: "AC/SO/Groups are only expected to implement Good Practices to the extent that these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices, in the view of AC/SO/Group participants. Again, we do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required by AC/SO/Groups.” Please reply to all by 11-Sep with your view on whether we should add Term Limits as a Good Practice. _______________________________________________ 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
Hi, Yes, one implements a program. A group considering and recording the consideration is an action/activity that would need to be implemented. The suggestion here is that formal consideration by a group of term limits is a good practice. It is not a question of considering implementation, it is about implementing consideration. Avri On 08-Sep-17 15:46, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Avri — we are recommending Good Practices that the group believes are worth implementing (if applicable).
None of the other 28 Good Practices suggest to “consider” something to do. All are suggestive that implementation is a good practice, and all our recommendations imply that AC/SO/Groups should therefore “consider" implementation.
Steve
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM To: "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] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017
Hi,
My understanding was that the statement being discussed was whether they should consider term limits.
I think this is an important difference. And I think that strengthening the statement into something that is easier to disagree with, is unfortunate.
I think the act of considering the need for term limits is all that is required. You are right, it is not best for all. But considering whether to impose them or not is a good practice as it gives those who hold positions without term limits who may see no reason for term limits, to be challenged by those out of power who may think they are needed. At this point there is no recommendation that all SOAC/AG/C consider term limits so those who want them may be flat out of luck.
I suggest that we avoid change the wording of the recommendation and that we support the recommendation that all entities consider whether they need term limits or not.
I personally believe that yes, we should add the consideration of terms limits as a good practice.
avri
On 08-Sep-17 09:27, Steve DelBianco wrote:
As discussed on our SOAC team call yesterday, we are nearly finished with our public comment responses <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uAjMUtnaigi5-zSMGmmIbvFNcPxGQC0cMB_a...> and updated recommendation <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sT6SscZLT7VK2rVFOMPaiK1Qd8vlVLkm0boRX7I8...> to the CCWG.
One remaining question is whether to add an additional Good Practice to the 28 we already have in our report.
The purpose of this email is to hear from all members of SOAC-Accountability as to whether our report should include this new proposed Good Practice:
*An AC/SO/Group that elects its officers should impose term limits. *
Note that this proposed Good Practice would _only_ apply to AC/SO/Groups that have elections. And as with all of our Good Practices, we describe applicability in our Executive Summary:
In Track 1 we recommend 29 Good Practices that each SO/AC/Group should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required. Nor do we recommend any changes to the ICANN bylaws. We do recommend that Operational Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in the AC/SO subject to the review.
And we include this caveat on page 8:
"AC/SO/Groups are only expected to implement Good Practices to the extent that these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices, in the view of AC/SO/Group participants. Again, we do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required by AC/SO/Groups.”
Please reply to all by 11-Sep with your view on whether we should add Term Limits as a Good Practice.
_______________________________________________ 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
Avri, et al, FWIW, SSAC adopted a term limit rule. It did so on its own without pressure from the Board or elsewhere. Implementation detail: The bylaws say the Board appoints SSAC members. I don’t recall the exact wording, but the interpretation includes the Board appointing the chair. What’s evolved in practice, however, is SSAC chooses its own members and elects its own chair. These decisions are then sent to the Board for formal approval. SSAC has been careful over the years to select well qualified people and to elect quite competent chairs, so the Board has never been presented with a difficult case. SSAC also has a liaison on the Board. The bylaws place no limits on the length of time a liaison can serve. In principle, it’s an annual appointment and can be renewed indefinitely. And if the appointing body happens not to formally renew the appointment, the incumbent automatically continues. SSAC has chosen to package this into three year terms, i.e. to appoint someone and then reappoint him or her automatically the next two years, thereby creating a de facto three year term. Further, I believe they have adopted a limit on the number of terms the liaison can serve. (All of this is written down in their operational manual. Julie Hedlund in David Olive’s group has ready access to it and can provide a copy.) I share this as a worked example. Use it or not, as desired. Steve
On Sep 8, 2017, at 4:10 PM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
Yes, one implements a program. A group considering and recording the consideration is an action/activity that would need to be implemented.
The suggestion here is that formal consideration by a group of term limits is a good practice.
It is not a question of considering implementation, it is about implementing consideration.
Avri
On 08-Sep-17 15:46, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Avri — we are recommending Good Practices that the group believes are worth implementing (if applicable).
None of the other 28 Good Practices suggest to “consider” something to do. All are suggestive that implementation is a good practice, and all our recommendations imply that AC/SO/Groups should therefore “consider" implementation.
Steve
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM To: "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] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017
Hi,
My understanding was that the statement being discussed was whether they should consider term limits.
I think this is an important difference. And I think that strengthening the statement into something that is easier to disagree with, is unfortunate.
I think the act of considering the need for term limits is all that is required. You are right, it is not best for all. But considering whether to impose them or not is a good practice as it gives those who hold positions without term limits who may see no reason for term limits, to be challenged by those out of power who may think they are needed. At this point there is no recommendation that all SOAC/AG/C consider term limits so those who want them may be flat out of luck.
I suggest that we avoid change the wording of the recommendation and that we support the recommendation that all entities consider whether they need term limits or not.
I personally believe that yes, we should add the consideration of terms limits as a good practice.
avri
On 08-Sep-17 09:27, Steve DelBianco wrote:
As discussed on our SOAC team call yesterday, we are nearly finished with our public comment responses <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uAjMUtnaigi5-zSMGmmIbvFNcPxGQC0cMB_a...> and updated recommendation <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sT6SscZLT7VK2rVFOMPaiK1Qd8vlVLkm0boRX7I8...> to the CCWG.
One remaining question is whether to add an additional Good Practice to the 28 we already have in our report.
The purpose of this email is to hear from all members of SOAC-Accountability as to whether our report should include this new proposed Good Practice:
*An AC/SO/Group that elects its officers should impose term limits. *
Note that this proposed Good Practice would _only_ apply to AC/SO/Groups that have elections. And as with all of our Good Practices, we describe applicability in our Executive Summary:
In Track 1 we recommend 29 Good Practices that each SO/AC/Group should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required. Nor do we recommend any changes to the ICANN bylaws. We do recommend that Operational Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in the AC/SO subject to the review.
And we include this caveat on page 8:
"AC/SO/Groups are only expected to implement Good Practices to the extent that these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices, in the view of AC/SO/Group participants. Again, we do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required by AC/SO/Groups.”
Please reply to all by 11-Sep with your view on whether we should add Term Limits as a Good Practice.
_______________________________________________ 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
Clever turn o phrase, Avri! But it’s just not meaningful to recommend that AC/SO’s simply “consider” a Good Practice. If that’s all we are recommending, why bother with recommended practices at all. From: avri doria <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 4:10 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "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] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017 Hi, Yes, one implements a program. A group considering and recording the consideration is an action/activity that would need to be implemented. The suggestion here is that formal consideration by a group of term limits is a good practice. It is not a question of considering implementation, it is about implementing consideration. Avri On 08-Sep-17 15:46, Steve DelBianco wrote: Avri — we are recommending Good Practices that the group believes are worth implementing (if applicable). None of the other 28 Good Practices suggest to “consider” something to do. All are suggestive that implementation is a good practice, and all our recommendations imply that AC/SO/Groups should therefore “consider" implementation. Steve From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of avri doria <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org> <mailto:avri@apc.org>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017 Hi, My understanding was that the statement being discussed was whether they should consider term limits. I think this is an important difference. And I think that strengthening the statement into something that is easier to disagree with, is unfortunate. I think the act of considering the need for term limits is all that is required. You are right, it is not best for all. But considering whether to impose them or not is a good practice as it gives those who hold positions without term limits who may see no reason for term limits, to be challenged by those out of power who may think they are needed. At this point there is no recommendation that all SOAC/AG/C consider term limits so those who want them may be flat out of luck. I suggest that we avoid change the wording of the recommendation and that we support the recommendation that all entities consider whether they need term limits or not. I personally believe that yes, we should add the consideration of terms limits as a good practice. avri On 08-Sep-17 09:27, Steve DelBianco wrote: As discussed on our SOAC team call yesterday, we are nearly finished with our public comment responses <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uAjMUtnaigi5-zSMGmmIbvFNcPxGQC0cMB_a...> and updated recommendation <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sT6SscZLT7VK2rVFOMPaiK1Qd8vlVLkm0boRX7I8...> to the CCWG. One remaining question is whether to add an additional Good Practice to the 28 we already have in our report. The purpose of this email is to hear from all members of SOAC-Accountability as to whether our report should include this new proposed Good Practice: *An AC/SO/Group that elects its officers should impose term limits. * Note that this proposed Good Practice would _only_ apply to AC/SO/Groups that have elections. And as with all of our Good Practices, we describe applicability in our Executive Summary: In Track 1 we recommend 29 Good Practices that each SO/AC/Group should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required. Nor do we recommend any changes to the ICANN bylaws. We do recommend that Operational Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in the AC/SO subject to the review. And we include this caveat on page 8: "AC/SO/Groups are only expected to implement Good Practices to the extent that these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices, in the view of AC/SO/Group participants. Again, we do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required by AC/SO/Groups.” Please reply to all by 11-Sep with your view on whether we should add Term Limits as a Good Practice. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: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> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, Recommending it because it is a good practice for organizations to consider term limits. The example of SSAC was good. They considered and decided that in one role it made sense for them and in another it did not. And then documented it an operational manual. Sounds like good practice to me. And not doing it can result in the problem of leadership being captured with no way for the organization to redress. This is important even in cases where leadership is not elected. And with elections, while it is true that incumbents can be voted out, running against an incumbent is something people at ICANN often shy away from for a variety of reasons. avri On 08-Sep-17 18:15, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Clever turn o phrase, Avri! But it’s just not meaningful to recommend that AC/SO’s simply “consider” a Good Practice. If that’s all we are recommending, why bother with recommended practices at all.
From: avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 4:10 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "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] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017
Hi,
Yes, one implements a program. A group considering and recording the consideration is an action/activity that would need to be implemented.
The suggestion here is that formal consideration by a group of term limits is a good practice.
It is not a question of considering implementation, it is about implementing consideration.
Avri
On 08-Sep-17 15:46, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Avri — we are recommending Good Practices that the group believes are worth implementing (if applicable).
None of the other 28 Good Practices suggest to “consider” something to do. All are suggestive that implementation is a good practice, and all our recommendations imply that AC/SO/Groups should therefore “consider" implementation.
Steve
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%3E>> on behalf of avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org> <mailto:avri@apc.org> <mailto:avri@apc.org%3E>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3E>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3E>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017
Hi,
My understanding was that the statement being discussed was whether they should consider term limits.
I think this is an important difference. And I think that strengthening the statement into something that is easier to disagree with, is unfortunate.
I think the act of considering the need for term limits is all that is required. You are right, it is not best for all. But considering whether to impose them or not is a good practice as it gives those who hold positions without term limits who may see no reason for term limits, to be challenged by those out of power who may think they are needed. At this point there is no recommendation that all SOAC/AG/C consider term limits so those who want them may be flat out of luck.
I suggest that we avoid change the wording of the recommendation and that we support the recommendation that all entities consider whether they need term limits or not.
I personally believe that yes, we should add the consideration of terms limits as a good practice.
avri
On 08-Sep-17 09:27, Steve DelBianco wrote:
As discussed on our SOAC team call yesterday, we are nearly finished with our public comment responses <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uAjMUtnaigi5-zSMGmmIbvFNcPxGQC0cMB_a...> and updated recommendation <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sT6SscZLT7VK2rVFOMPaiK1Qd8vlVLkm0boRX7I8...> to the CCWG.
One remaining question is whether to add an additional Good Practice to the 28 we already have in our report.
The purpose of this email is to hear from all members of SOAC-Accountability as to whether our report should include this new proposed Good Practice:
*An AC/SO/Group that elects its officers should impose term limits. *
Note that this proposed Good Practice would _only_ apply to AC/SO/Groups that have elections. And as with all of our Good Practices, we describe applicability in our Executive Summary:
In Track 1 we recommend 29 Good Practices that each SO/AC/Group should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required. Nor do we recommend any changes to the ICANN bylaws. We do recommend that Operational Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in the AC/SO subject to the review.
And we include this caveat on page 8:
"AC/SO/Groups are only expected to implement Good Practices to the extent that these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices, in the view of AC/SO/Group participants. Again, we do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required by AC/SO/Groups.”
Please reply to all by 11-Sep with your view on whether we should add Term Limits as a Good Practice.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I had the wrong understanding, so it's entirely my fault. I guess I've only been paying half attention. Mucho apologies. I see the working group is copied, so I hope this is sufficient, but if more would be helpful, please do provide the details. The larger point is that SSAC has been thoughtful about this topic and has been evolving its rules. Others are welcome to see what SSAC has done and then decide whether and how SSAC's procedures might apply to their own group. Steve Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 8, 2017, at 6:31 PM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
Recommending it because it is a good practice for organizations to consider term limits.
The example of SSAC was good. They considered and decided that in one role it made sense for them and in another it did not. And then documented it an operational manual. Sounds like good practice to me.
And not doing it can result in the problem of leadership being captured with no way for the organization to redress. This is important even in cases where leadership is not elected. And with elections, while it is true that incumbents can be voted out, running against an incumbent is something people at ICANN often shy away from for a variety of reasons.
avri
On 08-Sep-17 18:15, Steve DelBianco wrote: Clever turn o phrase, Avri! But it’s just not meaningful to recommend that AC/SO’s simply “consider” a Good Practice. If that’s all we are recommending, why bother with recommended practices at all.
From: avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 4:10 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "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] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017
Hi,
Yes, one implements a program. A group considering and recording the consideration is an action/activity that would need to be implemented.
The suggestion here is that formal consideration by a group of term limits is a good practice.
It is not a question of considering implementation, it is about implementing consideration.
Avri
On 08-Sep-17 15:46, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Avri — we are recommending Good Practices that the group believes are worth implementing (if applicable).
None of the other 28 Good Practices suggest to “consider” something to do. All are suggestive that implementation is a good practice, and all our recommendations imply that AC/SO/Groups should therefore “consider" implementation.
Steve
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%3E>> on behalf of avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org> <mailto:avri@apc.org> <mailto:avri@apc.org%3E>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3E>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3E>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017
Hi,
My understanding was that the statement being discussed was whether they should consider term limits.
I think this is an important difference. And I think that strengthening the statement into something that is easier to disagree with, is unfortunate.
I think the act of considering the need for term limits is all that is required. You are right, it is not best for all. But considering whether to impose them or not is a good practice as it gives those who hold positions without term limits who may see no reason for term limits, to be challenged by those out of power who may think they are needed. At this point there is no recommendation that all SOAC/AG/C consider term limits so those who want them may be flat out of luck.
I suggest that we avoid change the wording of the recommendation and that we support the recommendation that all entities consider whether they need term limits or not.
I personally believe that yes, we should add the consideration of terms limits as a good practice.
avri
On 08-Sep-17 09:27, Steve DelBianco wrote:
As discussed on our SOAC team call yesterday, we are nearly finished with our public comment responses
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uAjMUtnaigi5-zSMGmmIbvFNcPxGQC0cMB_a...> and updated recommendation
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sT6SscZLT7VK2rVFOMPaiK1Qd8vlVLkm0boRX7I8...> to the CCWG.
One remaining question is whether to add an additional Good Practice to the 28 we already have in our report.
The purpose of this email is to hear from all members of SOAC-Accountability as to whether our report should include this new proposed Good Practice:
*An AC/SO/Group that elects its officers should impose term limits. *
Note that this proposed Good Practice would _only_ apply to AC/SO/Groups that have elections. And as with all of our Good Practices, we describe applicability in our Executive Summary:
In Track 1 we recommend 29 Good Practices that each SO/AC/Group should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required. Nor do we recommend any changes to the ICANN bylaws. We do recommend that Operational Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in the AC/SO subject to the review.
And we include this caveat on page 8:
"AC/SO/Groups are only expected to implement Good Practices to the extent that these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices, in the view of AC/SO/Group participants. Again, we do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required by AC/SO/Groups.”
Please reply to all by 11-Sep with your view on whether we should add Term Limits as a Good Practice.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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> <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
Firstly, I disagree with this. Moreover, incumbents do not necessarily win (at least in ccNSO Council elections). More importantly, however, it seems that you are partly saying here that we sorta shouldn't be having elections because they don't really achieve their purpose. (That's probably not what you are saying, at all, right? I personally have mixed feelings about term limits. They are a traditional way to bring on 'new blood' which is healthy for an organisations. But I have also been involved in other organisations where term limits are a negative thing. In some cases there just isn't a queue of people banging at the Boardroom or Council chamber door volunteering to give up their time for free (or non-commercial rates). Indeed finding volunteers is a prime task. What the inclusion of term limits into the constitutional form does in these particular cases is to remove experience and expertise fromt he governing body and replace with with people who at best are no better than the people they replace (but without the necessary experience of getting things done) and at worst, aren't as good. Term limits become a tool of organisational capture by permanent staff when this happens. (See the ironic and sardonic programme "Yes, Minister", Margaret Thatcher's favourite TV show, which she always insisted was documentary in nature). In non-profit and volunteer organisations it's a good principle to vote the best person in, and then keep re-electing them as long as they are prepared to carry on. (Perhaps this is what you were referring to, regarding the incumbent effect?). So perhaps the answer might be the inclusion of term limits which are sufficiently long to allow the organisation to benefit from their choice, yet provide an ultimate exit date for the benefit of the office-holder as well as the the organisation. Our two elected Board members serve a maximum of nine years. That's more than enough for both officse-holder and electorate - after a long time in office, peoples' thinking can (but not necessarily does) become ossified, to everyone's detriment. Nigel Roberts PS: The recommendation to "consider" is fine by me, incidentally, as it preserves the subsidiarity rule. On 08/09/17 23:31, avri doria wrote:
true that incumbents can be voted out, running against an incumbent is something people at ICANN often shy away from for a variety of reasons.
Fine. So we recommend that SO/ACs consider whether to consider term limits. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On September 8, 2017 3:46:58 PM EDT, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Avri — we are recommending Good Practices that the group believes are worth implementing (if applicable).
None of the other 28 Good Practices suggest to “consider” something to do. All are suggestive that implementation is a good practice, and all our recommendations imply that AC/SO/Groups should therefore “consider" implementation.
Steve
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of avri doria <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM To: "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] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017
Hi,
My understanding was that the statement being discussed was whether they should consider term limits.
I think this is an important difference. And I think that strengthening the statement into something that is easier to disagree with, is unfortunate.
I think the act of considering the need for term limits is all that is required. You are right, it is not best for all. But considering whether to impose them or not is a good practice as it gives those who hold positions without term limits who may see no reason for term limits, to be challenged by those out of power who may think they are needed. At this point there is no recommendation that all SOAC/AG/C consider term limits so those who want them may be flat out of luck.
I suggest that we avoid change the wording of the recommendation and that we support the recommendation that all entities consider whether they need term limits or not.
I personally believe that yes, we should add the consideration of terms limits as a good practice.
avri
On 08-Sep-17 09:27, Steve DelBianco wrote: As discussed on our SOAC team call yesterday, we are nearly finished with our public comment responses <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uAjMUtnaigi5-zSMGmmIbvFNcPxGQC0cMB_a...> and updated recommendation <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sT6SscZLT7VK2rVFOMPaiK1Qd8vlVLkm0boRX7I8...> to the CCWG.
One remaining question is whether to add an additional Good Practice to the 28 we already have in our report.
The purpose of this email is to hear from all members of SOAC-Accountability as to whether our report should include this new proposed Good Practice:
*An AC/SO/Group that elects its officers should impose term limits. *
Note that this proposed Good Practice would _only_ apply to AC/SO/Groups that have elections. And as with all of our Good Practices, we describe applicability in our Executive Summary:
In Track 1 we recommend 29 Good Practices that each SO/AC/Group should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required. Nor do we recommend any changes to the ICANN bylaws. We do recommend that Operational Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in the AC/SO subject to the review.
And we include this caveat on page 8:
"AC/SO/Groups are only expected to implement Good Practices to the extent that these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices, in the view of AC/SO/Group participants. Again, we do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required by AC/SO/Groups.”
Please reply to all by 11-Sep with your view on whether we should add Term Limits as a Good Practice.
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
avri doria -
Nigel Roberts -
Steve Crocker -
Steve DelBianco