FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
The At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC) of ICANN takes this opportunity to thank ICANN for putting forward the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability Work Stream 2 (CCWG-Accountability WS2) final report for public comments.
The ALAC finds that the final report is in general consistent and addresses the requirements of section 27.1 of the ICANN Bylaws on WS2. However, we would like to note that the assurance of full consistency between all of the recommendations - which are noted in the report to be more than 100 - would depend primarily on the interpretation of the recommendations and the implementation plan. Therefore, we recommend paying close attention to the matter when developing the implementation plan and dedicating enough time to ensure that inconsistencies do not result due to misinterpretation of the recommendations.
The recommendations formulated in the various sections of this report all have merit in advancing ICANN's transparency and accountability. However, taken together, they may amount to a daunting burden on ICANN Org and its volunteer community. For this reason ALAC recommends that as the recommendations are implemented, ICANN takes an approach to minimize the impact and work associated with following these recommendations. Finally, we would like to allude that ALAC is ready to support an implementation team composed of the co-chairs and rapporteurs of the CCWG accountability.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.
Revised draft posted by Hadia Elminiawi at 8:25 pm 5-10-2018
The At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC) of the ICANN takes this opportunity to thank ICANN for putting forward the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) final report for public comments and is pleased to provide its comments with regard to the possible inconsistencies between the recommendations of the eight-subgroup reports incorporated in the final presented report herein
The ALAC finds that the final report is in general consistent and addresses the requirements of section 27.1 of the ICANN Bylaws on WS2. However, we would like to note that the assurance of full consistency between all of the recommendations - which are noted in the report to be more than 100 - would depend primarily on the interpretation of the recommendations and the implementation plan. Therefore, we recommend paying close attention to the matter when developing the implementation plan and dedicating enough time to ensure that inconsistencies do not result due to misinterpretation of the recommendations.
The recommendations formulated in the various sections of this report all have merit in advancing ICANN's transparency and accountability. However, taken together, they may amount to a daunting burden on ICANN Org and its volunteer community. For this reason ALAC recommends that as the recommendations are implemented, ICANN takes an approach to minimize the impact and work associated with following these recommendations. Finally, we would like to allude that ALAC is ready to support an implementation team composed of the co-chairs and rapporteurs of the CCWG accountability.
Revised Draft posted by Hadia Elminiawi following 09 May 2018 Consolidated Policy WG meeting
The At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC) of the ICANN takes this opportunity to thank ICANN for putting forward the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) final report for public comments and is pleased to provide its comments with regard to the possible inconsistencies between the recommendations of the eight-subgroup reports incorporated in the final presented report herein
The ALAC finds that the final report is in general consistent and addresses the requirements of section 27.1 of the ICANN Bylaws on WS2. However, we would like to note that the assurance of full consistency between all of the recommendations - which are noted in the report to be more than 100 - would depend primarily on the interpretation of the recommendations and the implementation plan. Therefore, we recommend paying close attention to the matter when developing the implementation plan and dedicating enough time to ensure that inconsistencies do not result due to misinterpretation of the recommendations. We would also recommend removing recommendation 4.3 under the Jurisdiction section as the Jurisdiction subgroup mentions that the discussions and concerns referred to under this section are beyond the mandate of the CCWG. Therefore, we see no need to incorporate it in the final report, this being said it remains listed in the original final report of the subgroup on page 27 under the background section, Annex 4.1 of the final report put forward for comments.
The recommendations formulated in the various sections of this report all have merit in advancing ICANN's transparency and accountability. However, taken together, they may amount to a daunting burden on ICANN Org and its volunteer community. For this reason ALAC recommends that as the recommendations are implemented, ICANN takes an approach to minimize the impact and work associated with following these recommendations. Finally, we would like to allude that ALAC is ready to support an implementation team composed of the co-chairs and rapporteurs of the CCWG accountability.
Original Draft posted by Hadia Elminiawi
The At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC) of the ICANN takes this opportunity to thank ICANN for putting the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) final report for public comments and is pleased to provide its comments with regard to the possible inconsistencies between the recommendations of the eight-subgroup reports incorporated in the final presented report herein
The ALAC finds that the final report is in general consistent and addressing the requirements of section 27.1 of the ICANN Bylaws on WS2. However, we would like to note that the commitment or assurance of full consistency between all of the recommendations - which are noted in the report to be more than 100 - would depend primarily on the interpretation of the recommendations and the implementation plan. Therefore, we recommend paying close attention to the matter when developing the implementation plan and dedicating enough time to insure that inconsistencies do not result due to misinterpretation of the recommendations. We would also recommend removing recommendation 4.3 under the Jurisdiction section as the Jurisdiction subgroup mentions that the discussions and concerns referred to under this section are beyond the mandate of the CCWG. Therefore, we see no need to incorporate it in the final report, this being said it remains listed in the original final report of the subgroup on page 27.
22 Comments
Hadia Elminiawi
The At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC) of the ICANN takes this opportunity to thank ICANN for putting the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) final report for public comments and is pleased to provide its comments with regard to the possible inconsistencies between the recommendations of the eight-subgroup reports incorporated in the final presented report herein
The ALAC finds that the final report is in general consistent and addresses the requirements of section 27.1 of the ICANN Bylaws on WS2. However, we would like to note that the assurance of full consistency between all of the recommendations - which are noted in the report to be more than 100 - would depend primarily on the interpretation of the recommendations and the implementation plan. Therefore, we recommend paying close attention to the matter when developing the implementation plan and dedicating enough time to ensure that inconsistencies do not result due to misinterpretation of the recommendations. We would also recommend removing recommendation 4.3 under the Jurisdiction section as the Jurisdiction subgroup mentions that the discussions and concerns referred to under this section are beyond the mandate of the CCWG. Therefore, we see no need to incorporate it in the final report, this being said it remains listed in the original final report of the subgroup on page 27.
Sebastien Bachollet
Thanks for that. I think we need to add that we (At-Large/ALAC) are ready/interested/available... to support an implementation team composed of the co-chairs and rapporteurs of the ccwg-accountability.
Alan Greenberg
As we all know, ICANN processes and procedures are continually growing and even the simplest things take a long time and require significant ICANN Org resources and volunteer time. These recommendations have the potential to making the situation even worse. Therefore I suggest adding:
Sebastien Bachollet
I support this proposal if it is done in concertation with the implementation team.
Alan Greenberg
Yes. Note that in the last sentence I said "ICANN" without modification implying both ICANN Org and the community, and the latter will do this via the Implementation Review Team (and perhaps via public comment).
Hadia Elminiawi
Hi all,
I have incorporated Sebastien and Alan's comments. There was a comment made yesterday by Yrjö Lansipuro, where he referred to section 8.2.1. suggesting to change the word's "political activities" to "contacts with governments", I can see why Yrjö is asking this, but the question is how can we change the words used if what is actually meant is "political activities" and not only "contacts with government," as an example if the political activity is lobbying, not all lobbying is "contacts with governments." Please tell what you think
Yesterday I mentioned that under the section " Guidelines for standards of conduct presumed to be in good faith associated with exercising removal of individual ICANN Board Directors" it was stated in the introduction on page 10 that "The EC, through the Delusional Participants has the right to appoint and remove individual Decisions" and I asked why is the word appoint put (By the way in the original subgroup final report it does not exist) Alan replied that it is just setting the scene, however I would like to comment that it is setting the wrong scene. Anyway I do see that the following sentence is clear. Please try to post today any other comments that you might have. Thanks
Sebastien Bachollet
I don't see differences between the 2 versions. Maybe not the one you wanted to put as final?
Hadia Elminiawi
Sebastien kindly put your suggestion
Alan Greenberg
Hadia, I believe that there was consensus that the reference to Jurisdiction be removed. Although it may not be clear why the reference to an out of scope issue was there, as Tatiana explained, there was a VERY good reason for doing so, and I do not believe that the ALAC wants to advocate for its removal.
I would suggest that
be removed. I for one could not support this statement if we are advocating something that will break the consensus on the report.
Hadia Elminiawi
I don't mind removing it, however what tatiana said was " “it's a compromise. And as I said, I don't mind if ALAC puts this as a comment! Although it might look insensitive but it makes the point again: the discussions about ICANN's imperialism, jurisdiciton and relocation are outside of the group remit so why are they in the report.”
As I said above I am fine with removing it although it was never part of the recommendations of the jurisdiction subgroup final report. That is there was no consensus within the group to put it. Moreover, thought there is no inconsistency between it and any other recommendation in the report, It is inconsistent with the final report itself because it is out of its scope, any way I am happy to remove it
Alan Greenberg
The point is that some participants in the group REALLY wanted it there and it is likely that if removed, there would be objection by at least one AC. So I do not think that the ALAC wants to advocate that.
Hadia Elminiawi
Alan I removed it, You can find it below as a comment as I am not able to save my edits to the Draft area while working from my PC at home, I can only put comments.
I ask you please to post it in the section of the final draft version to be voted on. Thank you
Alan Greenberg
Sebastien, that is because Hadia revised her original draft without noting that she had done so. I have added back the original version so it is clear what happened.
Hadia Elminiawi
I left my original comment to reflect the original
Hadia Elminiawi
yes true Alan, I left the comment to reflect the original -
Alan Greenberg
Yes, the original draft version was still in your comment, but it was not clear looking at the "FIRST DRAFT" box what had happened. Not your fault as the instructions were not clear, and this is not the first time it has happened. The instructions will be changed to make it clear what should be done.
Hadia Elminiawi
I don't mind removing it, however what tatiana said was " “it's a compromise. And as I said, I don't mind if ALAC puts this as a comment! Although it might look insensitive but it makes the point again: the discussions about ICANN's imperialism, jurisdiciton and relocation are outside of the group remit so why are they in the report.”
Hadia Elminiawi
Revised draft posted by Hadia Elminiawi at 8:25 pm 5-10-2018
The At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC) of the ICANN takes this opportunity to thank ICANN for putting forward the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) final report for public comments and is pleased to provide its comments with regard to the possible inconsistencies between the recommendations of the eight-subgroup reports incorporated in the final presented report herein
The ALAC finds that the final report is in general consistent and addresses the requirements of section 27.1 of the ICANN Bylaws on WS2. However, we would like to note that the assurance of full consistency between all of the recommendations - which are noted in the report to be more than 100 - would depend primarily on the interpretation of the recommendations and the implementation plan. Therefore, we recommend paying close attention to the matter when developing the implementation plan and dedicating enough time to ensure that inconsistencies do not result due to misinterpretation of the recommendations.
The recommendations formulated in the various sections of this report all have merit in advancing ICANN's transparency and accountability. However, taken together, they may amount to a daunting burden on ICANN Org and its volunteer community. For this reason ALAC recommends that as the recommendations are implemented, ICANN takes an approach to minimize the impact and work associated with following these recommendations. Finally, we would like to allude that ALAC is ready to support an implementation team composed of the co-chairs and rapporteurs of the CCWG accountability.
Alan Greenberg
Thanks. I have inserted this third draft in the sequence of drafts and updates the "Final Draft".
New instructions will be inserted into the policy template to make it clearer what needs to be done to handle situations like this in the future.
Hadia Elminiawi
Thank you Alan for inserting it, Yes for sure I need those instructions
Sebastien Bachollet
Thanks Hadia for taking care of this comments and Alan for both your inputs and taking care of the edition of this page. It is easier to understand.
Maureen Hilyard
A great joint effort and discussion between Hadia, Alan and Sebastian.
Each subsequent draft looks tidier in this current format too. It was one of those occasions that required the separate spaces.