On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:53 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:


At 14/12/2015 11:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
- Removal of nomcom appointed board member should have same threshold of 4 support and not 3 as currently stated in row 107 (para90)

 Do we really want to re-open this one?

I believe so, nomcom appointees are somewhat selected by the entire community and its board member removal process should be evident of that as well.


- I know there was CWG requirement to veto ICANN budget, I really wonder if that included the IANA budget as well. So I am really concerned by the current wording of Para153/154. I mean, is there any reason why IANA would be made to lack funding considering this is the actual technical work of ICANN? I fear those paras if effected could have unintended consequences. The IANA serves not just the numbers community!

 It was a requirement. This has also been raised by the Board.

Well I believe this should be fixed then.


- The threshold for removing entire board has to be absolute! i.e 5/5 and when it's 4 participating then it should be 4/4; if we are going to break the organisation, we should all take the responsibility. (Para176-181)

 I note that we did not require 100% in the 2nd draft.

Well this is the 3rd draft and if i recall correctly, the thresholds were discussed in more detail in LOS(the breakout groups Cheryl coordinated) and that was after the 2nd draft was up for public comment. In any case, I apologize for raising this now(as its when i observed it) but I don't think it matters whether we raised it during 2nd draft or not. The point is that spilling the entire board is a Plutonic action and every part of the community has to sign-up for it! It even somewhat goes against the concept of appointing SO/AC removing its individual board (nevermind that I am against that concept). As this simply means that if ALAC for instance object to the board spill, then the board will still be spilled anyway, including the board member appointed by ALAC.


- Which work stream 1 is referred to in para267? Perhaps we need to clarify when work stream 1 ends and when 2 commence as I think that paragraph may be misplaced in its current form.

 There is only one WS1. It ends when we issue the final proposal in a couple of weeks.

So i thought but here is the section that makes me wonder whether CCWG was referring to WS2
In Work Stream 1, include the review of Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee
accountability mechanisms into the independent periodical structural reviews performed on a
regular basis.
 


- Aside the overreaching discussion on "consensus requirement" GAC as an AC has been given more recognition by the virtue of having a formal board threshold to reject their advice. This in my view further gives formality/attention to GAC advice by the board. In view of this, I believe ALAC should request a former commitment from board to give our advice more attention as well. I don't know how we can say this in the comment period (without causing any uproar). Para274/5

 There is already an ATRT recommendation that has been accepted that somewhat strenthens out position. In my mind, there is no way to re-open that discussion now.

Well if there is no way then maybe ALAC should send some independent letter to the board on this.

Regards


Regards

"Sent from my handheld, do pardon any mistype ;-)"
On Dec 14, 2015 7:29 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:
The IANA Issues WG met on Friday to discuss possible issue on the CCWG-Accountability 3rd draft proposal.

The CCWG documents can be founds at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56145016.

The document discussed at the IANA-Issues meeting can be found linked to the Agenda Item 3 of https://community.icann.org/x/PIdlAw (entitled Review of Proposal and Potential ALAC Positions).

We need to send a summary of our comments to the CCWG today (in time for a CCWG meeting on Tuesday at 06:00 UTC). The attached document summarizes the issues as modified by the discussion during the teleconference.

Please send any comments in sufficient time for me to integrate them (as appropriate) into the documents. In particular, is there anything here that is counter to the tone or detail of the discussion?

The Final Public Comment must be submitted no later than 21 December. It will no doubt closely follow the attached document, but may well include other issues that come to light over the next days.

As ALL ALAC member will be asked to vote on the Public Comments and will ultimately have to decide whether to ratify the CCWG Proposal, this is both important and time-sensitive.

To the extent that is possible and you feel appropriate, please involve your RALOs.

Alan


_______________________________________________
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+(ALAC)



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!