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.
Sebastien Bachollet's reason for voting against the Statement:
As I am the only to vote No to the ALAC Statement on the Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability, I will try to explain why.
First, I don’t think we have a real exchange in an ALAC call about this statement.
Second, I totally support the #1 even if I don’t like the “best”. A good practice for one may not be a good practice for another. As I don’t like the model I don’t think “best” is a good practice.
Third, I do support the need to have some cross SO/AC accountability and a place to exchange about both those accountability maters and about all the good practices and the possibility to share them.
And forth, as there is no place to have (as it was requested by ATLAS 2) a systemic review of the organization (the whole ICANN) I consider that asking the ATRT to review the practices could be a good way to start.
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 ALAC supports the general direction of the recommendations, but does offer the following specific comments.
- The "best practices", one by one, each make sense. However, together the ALAC has concerns about the impact on groups remembering that these are all volunteers with often relatively minimal staff support. Accountability is important, but a fully accountable group that does nothing other than be accountable has no value within ICANN.
- The ALAC supported the original position of the SOAC-Accountability Working Group to not pursue the accountability roundtable. That was overruled by the CCWG. As currently proposed there is a high likelihood that it will become a meaningless exercise taking up valuable time at ICANN meetings with little benefit. That notwithstanding, if the decision is made that it should be kept, further thought needs to be given to exactly what it will do and what its aims are.
- The ALAC does not support the explicit incorporation of AC/SO best practices reviews into the ATRT scope. The periodic organizational reviews are a more appropriate opportunity to do such reviews. If a future ATRT chooses to do such a review, it is already wholly within its scope and prerogative.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.
The ALAC supports the general direction of the recommendations, but does offer the following specific comments.
- The "best practices", one by one, each make sense. However, together the ALAC has concerns about the impact on groups remembering that these are all volunteers with often relatively minimal staff support. Accountability is important, but a fully accountable group that does or nothing other than be accountable has no value within ICANN.
- The ALAC supported the original position of the SOAC-Accountability Working Group to not pursue the accountability roundtable. That was overruled by the CCWG. As currently proposed there is a high likelihood that it will become a meaningless exercise taking up valuable time at ICANN meetings with little benefit. That notwithstanding, if the decision is made that it should be kept needs to be further thought given to exactly what it will do and what its aims are.
- The ALAC does not support the explicit incorporation of AC/SO best practices reviews into the ATRT scope. The regular organizational reviews are an appropriate opportunity to do such reviews and the ATRTs should not be burdened with this responsibility. If a future ATRT chooses to do such a review, it is already wholly within its scope and prerogative.
