ACTION: Draft of the ALAC comments to be sent to the CCWG
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
Alan, I support your draft, and would like to add more about the Human Rights issue. As you said the international law and conventions are only binding for governments who signed them. That’s why any other body that wants to comply to them should include them in its bylaw as ICANN do by including in its bylaws as core value of the incorporation that it must carry out its activities in accordance with applicable law and international law and conventions. What is the need of repeating in the bylaws the commitment to respect internationally recognized human rights? Are they not part of the applicable international law and conventions? Also, the CCWG legal advice told that upon termination of the NTIA Contract, there would be no significant impact on ICANN’s Human Rights obligations. So why this is needed? It is even more strange that despite the legal advice and the provision in the core values that ICANN must carry out its activities in accordance with applicable law and international law and conventions that include human rights, the proposal suggest to add an interim bylaw about human rights, knowing that the final language about the human rights issue will be worked out in work stream 2. My strong fear is that they want to regulate the content though this heavy insistence in putting more and more to intimidate us; you may see in the futur delegation of TLDs prevented because the applicant "doesn’t respect human rights" in the content carried by the TLD……. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 14 déc. 2015 à 07:19, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
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 <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 <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
<Draft-ALAC-Issues-13Dec2015.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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...)
Thank you Tijani. I just arrive at my office from client few minutes ago not anymore in time to make any move. But I do support Alan’s draft with the comments Tijani has added. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA Date: Monday, December 14, 2015 at 6:39 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: 'ALAC List' Subject: Re: [ALAC] ACTION: Draft of the ALAC comments to be sent to the CCWG Alan, I support your draft, and would like to add more about the Human Rights issue. As you said the international law and conventions are only binding for governments who signed them. That’s why any other body that wants to comply to them should include them in its bylaw as ICANN do by including in its bylaws as core value of the incorporation that it must carry out its activities in accordance with applicable law and international law and conventions. What is the need of repeating in the bylaws the commitment to respect internationally recognized human rights? Are they not part of the applicable international law and conventions? Also, the CCWG legal advice told that upon termination of the NTIA Contract, there would be no significant impact on ICANN’s Human Rights obligations. So why this is needed? It is even more strange that despite the legal advice and the provision in the core values that ICANN must carry out its activities in accordance with applicable law and international law and conventions that include human rights, the proposal suggest to add an interim bylaw about human rights, knowing that the final language about the human rights issue will be worked out in work stream 2. My strong fear is that they want to regulate the content though this heavy insistence in putting more and more to intimidate us; you may see in the futur delegation of TLDs prevented because the applicant "doesn’t respect human rights" in the content carried by the TLD……. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 14 déc. 2015 à 07:19, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> a écrit : 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 <Draft-ALAC-Issues-13Dec2015.pdf>_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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...)
Tijani, at this point, you are the only person who is asking for this (later supported by Vanda). Are there others that . If there are others, please speak up. My personal position has been I did not want to see specific language in the Bylaws without a careful analysis of what it would imply and how, if any, ICANN would be impacted (as you alluded to in your last paragraph). The current wording meetings that target, other than the absolute commitment to the 1 year deadline. Alan At 14/12/2015 03:39 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
Alan,
I support your draft, and would like to add more about the Human Rights issue.
As you said the international law and conventions are only binding for governments who signed them. Thatâs why any other body that wants to comply to them should include them in its bylaw as ICANN do by including in its bylaws as core value of the incorporation that it must carry out its activities in accordance with applicable law and international law and conventions. What is the need of repeating in the bylaws the commitment to respect internationally recognized human rights? Are they not part of the applicable international law and conventions?
Also, the CCWG legal advice told that upon termination of the NTIA Contract, there would be no significant impact on ICANNâs Human Rights obligations. So why this is needed?
It is even more strange that despite the legal advice and the provision in the core values that ICANN must carry out its activities in accordance with applicable law and international law and conventions that include human rights, the proposal suggest to add an interim bylaw about human rights, knowing that the final language about the human rights issue will be worked out in work stream 2.
My strong fear is that they want to regulate the content though this heavy insistence in putting more and more to intimidate us; you may see in the futur delegation of TLDs prevented because the applicant "doesnât respect human rights" in the content carried by the TLD .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 14 déc. 2015 à 07:19, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
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
<Draft-ALAC-Issues-13Dec2015.pdf>_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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...)
Alan: Sometimes to understand a document I have to edit it. If any of these edits are of assistance to you and others, good. Their purpose was merely to put into correct or comprehensible English at some points where the draft text was not grammatical, or idiomatic, or where, in one case, the text was incoherent. TMD On 12/14/2015 1:19 AM, Alan Greenberg 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 <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+(ALA...)
-- Timothy Denton 613-789-5397 line 613 222 1850 cell
Thanks for the edits Tim. I had intended that people comment by line number, but in the future, if you prefer a WORD doc, just ask for a copy... Alan At 14/12/2015 10:01 AM, Timothy Denton wrote:
Alan: Sometimes to understand a document I have to edit it.
If any of these edits are of assistance to you and others, good. Their purpose was merely to put into correct or comprehensible English at some points where the draft text was not grammatical, or idiomatic, or where, in one case, the text was incoherent.
TMD
On 12/14/2015 1:19 AM, Alan Greenberg 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 <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-- Timothy Denton 613-789-5397 line 613 222 1850 cell
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Tim, in answer to your comments: In section 2 of the RSEP process - asking what "competition issues" could mean and giving several examples, I think that the answer may be yes. This is text in existing ICANN policy and presumably it is open to some interpretations. On replacing "scope-creep in the extreme" with "vast expansion of ICANN's scope", I have kept the less formal wording. "scope-creep" is the bug-a-boo that some in the CCWG continually raise as the reason for putting in some of the more Draconian mission changes. I think it right to throw the term back at them. In our formal comment, we will be a bit more genteel. Alan At 14/12/2015 10:01 AM, Timothy Denton wrote:
Alan: Sometimes to understand a document I have to edit it.
If any of these edits are of assistance to you and others, good. Their purpose was merely to put into correct or comprehensible English at some points where the draft text was not grammatical, or idiomatic, or where, in one case, the text was incoherent.
TMD
On 12/14/2015 1:19 AM, Alan Greenberg 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 <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-- Timothy Denton 613-789-5397 line 613 222 1850 cell
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Thanks Alan, Still (re) reading the documents (not trying to switch to French as I am not sure about translation). Good proposal I agree with the suggestions from both Olivier, Tijani and Timothy. I would like to add few points in short sentences: Internet need stability ICANN need agility (I have the impression that Internet and ICANN are mixed in the ccwg document) Empowered Community vs community (seems that the second is often taken for the first need to be carefully used in the ccwg text) P6 #6 Bullet point 3: Want to be sure that diversity will be taken into consideration for ICANN in all it¹s dimension and constituent (including the Board). P14 #2 Who (people) will be « The members of the UA »? Reco #2 P18 Step 1 last BP « Committees (???) support the petition » Must be AC/SO? P18 #76 BP2 Services must include Interpretation for any conf call Reco #3 P23 #128 & 129 « additional protection from changes. » « More difficult to change. » We need protection against « Bad Direction » not against changes. That all regarding the document. But I would like to restate my deep concerne about Recall of the entire board (if and when it will happen the power will be in the (already powerful) hand of staff) Remove of individual BM Even if with this accountability proposal is presented as a multistakeholder enhancement, ICANN as a multistakeholder organization is in danger. To much places where part of the community what to decide by and for them twelve and to much risk (and possibility) to leave ICANN (like PTI) to other structure less multistakholder. Last (but not least): are we sure that all the current bylaws about ALAC (and at-Large) must stay in the future standard Bylaws? Thanks for reading. Hope it is clear. Available for exchanges. PS: A face to face would have been useful to discuss in depth this ccwg (or the next one) report on ICANN accountability. All the best Skills are useful but diversity is essential. Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com> De : <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date : lundi 14 décembre 2015 07:19 À : ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Objet : [ALAC] ACTION: Draft of the ALAC comments to be sent to the CCWG
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+(ALA...)
Hello Alan, To avoid repeating what may have been already said, is it possible to see the current updated draft i.e The version you intend to present to ccwg? Also I do hope that there will still be opportunity to review beyond the ccwg meeting. That said, a few comments on your draft below(again at the fear of repetition): - Spelling/grammatical checks needs to be done. Which I think Tim may have done justice to - line 93: Supporting inclusion of human rights in the bylaw is too strong a statement. I'd suggest that it be conditioned on seeing the actual bylaw text. Maybe we should even ask ourselves whether any form of human rights text be included in the bylaw? If I were to answer, my response will be that; for a technical organisation like ICANN, I'd say NO. - We did not indicate support/against for some of the recommendations? Is this just focusing on where we have issues? as I thought we should state our stand for all the recommendations, even if it's just 1 line of support. - I support the observation made by Olivier on budget veto and I believe it should be included. Other comments on the proposal: - As usual, I still have huge concern on the ability for appointing SO/AC to remove its board member. - The ability for anyone(except the originator) to petition a bylaw implementation that results from PDP is IMO absurd as it seem quite top down. However I can live with it but suggest that the requirement for originating PDP support be moved to the "triggering review of petition" layer instead of "power exercising layer" in the escalation process(para76) - Removal of nomcom appointed board member should have same threshold of 4 support and not 3 as currently stated in row 107 (para90) - 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! - 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) - 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. - 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 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+(ALA...)
Dear Seun, just a few points: On 15/12/2015 05:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
- line 93: Supporting inclusion of human rights in the bylaw is too strong a statement. I'd suggest that it be conditioned on seeing the actual bylaw text. Maybe we should even ask ourselves whether any form of human rights text be included in the bylaw? If I were to answer, my response will be that; for a technical organisation like ICANN, I'd say NO.
ICANN performs some tasks which some Governments have said should be performed by Governments. The current emphasis on Human Rights is such that corporations and non-profits that have a strong public interest component and that perform such tasks incorporate Human Rights text. There is a cross community working party that has worked for over a year on this and the idea has gone a long way from when it was first mentioned. It is a side issue - let's not be the Advisory Committee that takes position against this.
- Removal of nomcom appointed board member should have same threshold of 4 support and not 3 as currently stated in row 107 (para90)
+1 sharp eye!
- 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!
The scenario that ICANN would starve IANA of funds is ludicrous, IMHO. It would play against ICANN since IANA would not be able to perform its functions correctly, thus triggering an IANA functions Review, with a possible end point that IANA gets separated from ICANN. This is yet another example of a Community gone wild on stupid scenarios.
- 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)
Interesting and very valid point. the question is: if an SO or AC does not support removing the entire Board, are they allowed to keep their Board member on the Board? If not, then how could an SO or AC accept that the Director they selected to be dismissed without their approval? Kindest regards, Olivier
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Seun,
just a few points:
On 15/12/2015 05:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
- line 93: Supporting inclusion of human rights in the bylaw is too strong a statement. I'd suggest that it be conditioned on seeing the actual bylaw text. Maybe we should even ask ourselves whether any form of human rights text be included in the bylaw? If I were to answer, my response will be that; for a technical organisation like ICANN, I'd say NO.
ICANN performs some tasks which some Governments have said should be performed by Governments. The current emphasis on Human Rights is such that corporations and non-profits that have a strong public interest component and that perform such tasks incorporate Human Rights text. There is a cross community working party that has worked for over a year on this and the idea has gone a long way from when it was first mentioned. It is a side issue - let's not be the Advisory Committee that takes position against this.
SO: I would look forward to human rights wording in the bylaw that would ONLY achieve the purpose you've stated above. I commend the CCWG working on this but as attractive as it seem, I don't we should underestimate the unintended implications that HR wording can cause. Its just beyond stress tests! At times we should weigh the disadvantage over advantages. I don't know ANY technical organization like ICANN that has such provisions, I am a fan of HR but putting it within ICANN governing document seem to me like expanding ICANN's scope/mission by default! Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Dear Seun, comments inline: On 15/12/2015 10:00, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Seun,
just a few points:
On 15/12/2015 05:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > - line 93: Supporting inclusion of human rights in the bylaw is too > strong a statement. I'd suggest that it be conditioned on seeing the > actual bylaw text. Maybe we should even ask ourselves whether any form > of human rights text be included in the bylaw? If I were to answer, my > response will be that; for a technical organisation like ICANN, I'd > say NO. >
ICANN performs some tasks which some Governments have said should be performed by Governments. The current emphasis on Human Rights is such that corporations and non-profits that have a strong public interest component and that perform such tasks incorporate Human Rights text. There is a cross community working party that has worked for over a year on this and the idea has gone a long way from when it was first mentioned. It is a side issue - let's not be the Advisory Committee that takes position against this.
SO: I would look forward to human rights wording in the bylaw that would ONLY achieve the purpose you've stated above.
Do you not think that the language which is currently included is suitable to explicitly state that the acknowledgement of HR does not provide any additional right? I felt that the section was well written. It is highly unlikely that at this stage we'll be able to convince anyone to remove this section, bearing in mind the level of support that it has gained from other communities. In addition, it would reflect really badly on the ALAC to oppose a section on human rights. I'd suggest we have much more concerns with other parts of the report. Kindest regards, Olivier
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Seun Ojedeji -
Sébastien Bachollet -
Tijani BEN JEMAA -
Timothy Denton -
Vanda Scartezini