Dear colleagues, Alan Greenberg, the Chair of ALAC, has published this morning the following proposed comments for the ccwg-accountability. Please find attached also (and at the end of this exchange) what I will publish as comments to the proposed comments ;). I can¹t wait for your inputs (but they are welcome) as the time frame is very short. And I will be tomorrow at FGI-France for the whole day and then travelling to Sofia for Eurodig. Please read also the AFRALO comments. Thanks All the best Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com> Le 01/06/2015 07:40, « Alan Greenberg » <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
The first draft of the ALAC comments is posted at https://community.icann.org/x/koU0Aw. A copy is also attached to this e-mail. It needs to be read along with the overall proposal (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-prop osal-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf).
The final version must be submitted on Wednesday, 03 June by 23:59 UTC.
Although the comment covers a lot of areas, I believe that it faithfully reflects (on the whole) what has been contributed on our many teleconferences on the subject).
Please post comments and suggestions here using line numbers to identify target text.
Note that at the start I was inserting the explicit questions asked by the report but found they added little value to the comments already inserted. I will remove these Blue questions in the next version.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Iana-issues mailing list Iana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues
Thanks Alan for this first draft. I would like to provide few comments on this proposal. Line 32 ³the ALAC believes that fostering trust in the DNS² can we add the other identifiers that ICANN take are of? Line 84: I have significant concerns about removing one board member or the whole board. I know that for a lot of people it seems to be the best weapon to have the board acting as the community (not yet completely defined) would like. Lines 153 and following Section 5.5 Power: Removing individual ICANN Directors The Board members are currently elected/selected for 3 years. A quote from the actual bylaws: ARTICLE VI: BOARD OF DIRECTORSSection 7. DUTIES OF DIRECTORS Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in what they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN and not as representatives of the entity that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or constituencies. If the ³the members of the group believe that the person (appointed as Director) shares common values with the group² at the moment of the selection/election process, I am sure it can be the case for 3 years. Removing individual ICANN Director is in contradiction with its independency. Lines 197 and 198 If this is the way to go to remove Nomcom appointees the members of a ³sub-committee of the NomCom appointed to carry out NomCom-appointed Director removals² must not be eligible to the Board for one year after the end of there term. Lines 199 and following 5.6 Power: Recalling the entire ICANN Board[1] Five Board members are currently elected/selected each year for 3 years. Recalling the entire ICANN Board must not be supported. It will create more disruption to the whole organization than it will solve the issue(s) under discussion. Some participants call this possibility the ³nuclear option². The result will be the end of ICANN. If it could be the goal of some, it can¹t be ours. As AFRALO did publish one hour ago there comments, I would like to express my support. ________________________________________ [1] 5.6 Power: Recalling the entire ICANN Board: he ALAC supports this mechanism Must be 5.6 Power: Recalling the entire ICANN Board: the ALAC supports this mechanism