Hi Alan, I think I was a little unclear here - I think I’ll Skype you separately to clarify and discuss this further. Regards, Raf On 23 Sep 2014, at 20:12, Raf Fatani <raf@sasiconsult.com> wrote:
I think the statement is good, however I do think we need to put an ALAC twist to it and use this to our advantage.
I note that point (5) in their statement refers to a timely response to CG, so maybe we can attach a point similar to that of the one we made in the statement regarding the proposed bylaw changes regarding GAC advice, and suggest that this has not been followed up in the past (Referring to the ATRT2 recommended regarding the revision process).
ALAC must be at the heart of ICANNs accountability, and we must not be used as a tool to serve the board only. I am sorry if I am stepping on toes here, but maybe it’s time to put some teeth into this issue.
Kind Regards,
Raf
Rafid A Y Fatani Eng. MA. Ph.D. (Exon) Policy and Stakeholder Relations Director
Disclaimer
This message and its attachments are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please email the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Further, you should not disclose, copy, distribute or use this message and any attachments.
Dear ALAC members,
following up on my earlier message to the list concerning the ICANN Enhancing Accountability Plan, as well as my update on today's ALAC call, please be so kind to find a proposal from the Registry Constituency with a follow-up set of points.
Since the ALAC has not so far drafted any text for the Public Comment period which we have displayed on https://community.icann.org/x/7g3xAg may I suggest that we consider supporting the points made below?
As the closing date for this public comment is this Saturday, I would ideally like to hear your concerns in the next 24H and if there are no objections, it would be worth considering conducting an ALAC vote on a Statement that takes those points.
Looking forward to your kind feedback.
Best regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: RE: Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan -- Clarifying Questions Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:57:23 +0000 From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> To:
Quick update. Per my note below, here are the RySG’s proposed procedural adjustments related to #2 below. This is also still under discussion, but I wanted to share.
The proposed plan requires further procedural clarification regarding the final stage of ICANN Board acceptance, referral or rejection of consensus recommendations delivered by community via Coordinating Group (CG). We include the following as procedural enhancements that would enhance confidence and predictability:
1. The process must assume that the Board will accept all community recommendations delivered by the Coordinating Group (CG) unless a legal conflict is identified and confirmed by independent experts chosen by the community. 2. There will be regular checkpoints between the CG and the ICANN Board, Staff and General Counsel to identify any procedural or legal concerns prior to delivery of recommendation. 3. In the unlikely event the Board cannot accept a recommendation it may not simply reject it. It must send it back to the CG for further engagement. 4. Referral of any recommendation back to the CG shall require a unanimous Board vote. 5. Any referral must take place within a reasonable timeframe to allow for dialogue and resolution and to prevent conflict with the 9/2015 target date for IANA stewardship transition. 6. All Board meetings, teleconferences, discussions and email on the Accountability issue must be open, including exchanges with the ICANN General Council, the Board liaison, Staff liaison and other ICANN staff.
I welcome your views on the above.
Regards,
Keith
*From:*Drazek, Keith *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 10:30 AM *To:* Byron Holland; Heather Dryden; tony holmes; Michele Neylon :: Blacknight; elisa.cooper@markmonitor.com; krosette@cov.com; rafik.dammak@gmail.com; William Drake; Jonathan Robinson; Patrik Fältström; liman@netnod.se; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Subject:* Fwd: Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan -- Clarifying Questions
Hi everyone,
I'm sure you're all reviewing and assessing ICANN's response to our September 3 letter. As you know, the public comment deadline is this coming Saturday, so time is very short to submit any recommended adjustments to ICANN's proposed process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
I feel strongly that the only chance we, the community, have to constructively amend this process is to stick together and continue to present a united front...as we have for the last 2 months.
The RySG is working to finalize the few key adjustments or clarifications we think are necessary for our support of (and trust in) the process. Our current thinking is included below for your consideration.
Can you please respond to this message and share your respective group's plans and your preliminary views? Can we try to align our recommendations to come up with another joint statement, or at least identify a baseline of recommendations that would receive full support?
Following ICANN's response to our September 3 letter, here are the RySG's current views (still under discussion):
1. The 7 Advisors must be advisory only. We welcome the use of expert advisors to inform the work of the Coordinating Group and the Community Working Group, but they should not participate in determining consensus. These advisors are being hand-picked by a group of 4 individuals who were hand-picked by the ICANN CEO. I'm sure everyone recalls that their original plan was to have the Board's Governance Committee appoint the advisors directly and the original cutoff for nominations was September 10. We believe the appointment of these experts is, at least in part, designed to narrow the scope of the community's discussions and recommendation. As such, they should be limited to only providing advice and not be permitted to dilute the community's influence in the Coordinating Group or its role in recommending the final accountability enhancements. If they are advisory only, the community's SO-AC-SG representatives will retain appropriate influence or control over the eventual recommendation.
2. There must be a predictable and agreed-to process for handling any instance where the Board does not accept a consensus recommendation from the Coordinating Group. ICANN's response saying that the Board's interests are the same as the community interests completely misses the fact that their fiduciary responsibility is to the California-based not-for-profit corporation first, and to the community's interests second. As such, we the community need to have confidence in the end-game scenario where the ICANN General Counsel's office tells the Board it cannot or should not accept a consensus recommendation from the Coordinating Group. Ideally this situation will not arise, but we need to prepare for it and have confidence that the Board will not simply be able to reject or selectively accept the CG's recommendations. We are still working on the details of a recommended process, but it will be similar to the proposed language that was edited out from our September 3 letter (because it was a recommendation and not a question).
I believe these are the two most critical adjustments we will require to be able to support ICANN staff's proposed process. We originally called for a traditional CCWG and that call was rejected by ICANN because, apparently, a CCWG did not easily allow for the participation of external parties. They also wanted to bring in the external experts as discussed above. Setting aside their motivations for doing so, we believe these two adjustments are critical for establishing a process we can trust.
I hope we can come to a common position on fixing this process. I'm sure we're all ready to begin the substantive work of identifying meaningful accountability enhancements.
Regards,
Keith
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)