On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:03:40PM -0300, Frederico A C Neves wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:10:30AM +0100, Patrik Fältström via IFRT wrote:
The most important thing:
D. Even if I am bringing back feedback from SSAC, SSAC do have a specific consensus based process for making statements. Statements for example in the form of SSAC documents. This implies that even if I am communicating and tries to bring data back to IFRT, if IFRT require formal response from SSAC that must be formally requested from me, and I will launch such a process within SSAC. It is also the case that regardless of what work I do with IFRT, SSAC always see itself be able to if needed initiate a process and send formal comments. For example during an ICANN review process which we in IFRT might launch on our findings. Or to say it differently: regardless of what I do, SSAC might still (also) say something if needed.
I understand the formal procedures for positioning of well established bodies at ICANN but the principle we are listing are an ethical guidance for IFRT members. They definitely don't impose or preclude the other methods of input from other bodies.
I believe we have an issue either with English or with English legalese. If it's ethical guidance, then that should be made more explicit. Otherwise it is important to make sure that there's neither an envoy system in place, within which the IFRT could not do it's work. Also, the sending organizations cannot be bound by what the appointees say because most of us do not speak ex cathedra. -Peter