Board passed a resolution on dealing with Accountability CCWG Recommendations. It's what we were told us on Sunday — except there was no opportunity for community discussion, as Bruce promised. There is one twist: the resolution says board can only cite ‘Global Public Interest’ as reason to reject CCWG recommendations. So they can’t just say ‘this will be impractical’ or ‘ this might generate legal challenges’ etc.
BRUCE TONKIN: I JUST WANT TO SORT OF SET A PREFACE HERE IN THAT FIRSTLY THE BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE COMMUNITY IS ACTING QUICKLY TO CONVENE A CROSS-COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP ON ENHANCING ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS RECEIVED OVER THE PAST WEEK OR SO IS THEY'RE WANTING SOME CERTAINTY FOR WHAT THE BOARD WILL DO WHEN IT GETS THE OUTPUT OF THAT CROSS-COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP. AND BEFORE I RUN THROUGH THE PROCEDURE THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED AND THAT PROCEDURE IS BASED ON WHAT'S IN THE BYLAWS FOR TAKING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CCNSO AND GNSO, IT IS A BIT OF THE BLEND OF THE TWO. BEFORE GOING INTO THAT PROCEDURE, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AS FAR AS THE BOARD IS CONCERNED, WE THINK IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THIS PROCEDURE WILL EVER BE INVOKED.
AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND WILL BE WORKING THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY ON THIS TOPIC AND THE BOARD WILL ALSO HAVE A LIAISON IN THE CROSS-COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP AND ANY ISSUES THAT MIGHT GET IDENTIFIED IN THAT PROCESS, WE EXPECT WOULD BE IDENTIFIED EARLY AND INCORPORATED IN THE REPORT THAT WE GET FROM THAT CROSS-COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP. BUT JUST AS STEVE DELBIANCO HAS SAID BEFORE, WE'VE GOT TO DO SCENARIO PLANNING. SO THIS IS THE SCENARIO -- THE WORST CASE SCENARIO AND WE JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE CERTAINTY ON HOW WE WOULD HANDLE THAT WORST-CASE SCENARIO IN THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT COMES TO THE BOARD. SO IT IS RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD COMMITS TO FOLLOWING THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES WHEN CONSIDERING THE CROSS-COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS ON ENHANCING ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE. THESE PRINCIPLES APPLY TO CONSENSUS-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CROSS-COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP ON ENHANCING ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE. IF THE BOARD BELIEVES IT IS NOT IN THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST TO IMPLEMENT A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE WORKING GROUP, IT MUST INITIATE A DIALOGUE WITH THE WORKING GROUP. A DETERMINATION THAT IS NOT IN THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST TO IMPLEMENT A RECOMMENDATION REQUIRES A 2/3 MAJORITY OF THE BOARD. THE BOARD MUST PROVIDE DETAILED RATIONALE TO ACCOMPANY THE INITIATION OF THE DIALOGUE. AND THE BOARD WILL AGREE WITH THE WORKING GROUP ON THE METHOD WHICH MIGHT BE TELECONFERENCE, EMAIL OR OTHERWISE, BY WHICH THAT DIALOGUE WILL OCCUR. THE DISCUSSIONS WILL BE HELD IN GOOD FAITH AND IN A TIMELY AND EFFICIENT MANNER TO FIND A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION. THE WORKING GROUP WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE BOARD'S CONCERNS AND REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD ON FURTHER DELIBERATIONS CONCERNING -- REGARDING THE BOARD'S CONCERNS. THE WORKING GROUP SHALL DISCUSS THE BOARD'S CONCERNS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE BOARD'S INITIATION OF THE DIALOGUE. IF A RECOMMENDATION IS MODIFIED THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP, IT IS RETURNED BACK TO THE BOARD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. THE WORKING GROUP IS TO PROVIDE DETAILED RATIONALE ON HOW THE MODIFICATION ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE BOARD. IF, AFTER MODIFICATION, THE BOARD STILL BELIEVES THE WORKING GROUP IS NOT IN THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST, THE BOARD WILL SEND THE ITEM BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. AGAIN, THIS WOULD REQUIRE A 2/3 VOTE OF THE BOARD TO DO THAT. AND, AGAIN, A DETAILED RATIONALE FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION IS REQUIRED. KEY POINT, IN THE EVENT THE BOARD DETERMINES NOT TO ACCEPT A MODIFICATION, THEN THE BOARD IS NOT ENTITLED TO SET ITS OWN SOLUTION ON THE ISSUE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE WORKING GROUP AND THE BOARD REACH AGREEMENT. SO THAT IS THE PROCESS.
STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? CHRIS DISSPAIN: YEAH, I'LL SECOND IT, STEVE. IT'S CHRIS. STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WILL COMMENT THAT WE TAKE AS WE'VE SAID MANY TIMES, WE TAKE THESE EFFORTS FROM THE COMMUNITY EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY. WE'RE LOOKING FOR SUCCESS. WE'RE LOOKING FOR SUBSTANCE. WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOLID ENGAGEMENT. THIS IS A COOPERATIVE VENTURE. THERE IS NOT -- AT THE HEART, THERE IS NOT REALLY ANY FUNDAMENTAL TENSION AND SO I KNOW THAT THERE'S ALWAYS CONCERN ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF AND SO FORTH. BUT THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THIS WORKS AND SHOULD WORK REASONABLY SMOOTHLY AND THAT WHERE THERE'S DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SHARING VIEWS AND FOR WORKING IT OUT AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLE TUSSLES OVER TURF. SO WITH THAT, LET ME CALL FOR THE VOTE. GO AHEAD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. [CHORUS OF AYES. ] ANY OPPOSED? [NO VERBAL RESPONSE. ] ANY ABSTENTIONS? [NO VERBAL RESPONSE. ] THANK YOU. BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, STEVE. AND THANK YOU FOR PASSING IT. [APPLAUSE ]