<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] fw: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
- To: "egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] fw: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:32:52 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Authentication-results: toast.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;toast.net; dmarc=none action=none header.from=godaddy.com;
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=I1UNyMRNIrsXdKl0Cug3L0dvenupZtAbOhBxFCQ4Q7U=; b=fdDXPKaUu/w9EOfbCzas8lSw6onX7LQsVJS4qDs0RXT9VHFI9ScLFIrY65VgZxXFNbOMd2Pk06ijCX+pzRk/o2YO/2kcHVgsqi6CW1Xco0XBWNy2ETDusvtGm0LyCCRN80RcAVJ3TxZMIfenGiocHitT1yfRupzhna4UMK7/HOg=
- In-reply-to: <05d691b189c94af88d37e730baea1e6d@toast.net>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <05d691b189c94af88d37e730baea1e6d@toast.net>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
- Thread-index: AQHRazcwwTVt5focFkmErrF25I7NZp8zPBYA
- Thread-topic: [council] fw: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
Thanks, Ed. I also won't add any color, except to agree that this is all
coming very late. The train had effectively left the station (and in fact was
approaching the next stop).
J.
From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on
behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 10:57
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] fw: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
Fellow Councillors,
For those not on the CCWG mailing list, I wanted to share this rather
'interesting' post from Steve Crocker. I won't comment other than to note that
the deadline for minority statements was yesterday and the final Supplemental
report is due today. Nevertheless, this is something we are going to have to
deal with.
Best,
Ed Morris
________________________________
From: "Steve Crocker" <steve.crocker@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:steve.crocker@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 4:29 PM
To: "Mathieu Weill" <Mathieu.Weill@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@xxxxxxxx>>,
"León Felipe Sánchez Ambía"
<leonfelipe@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:leonfelipe@xxxxxxxxxx>>, "Thomas Rickert"
<thomas@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:thomas@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Steve Crocker" <steve.crocker@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:steve.crocker@xxxxxxxxx>>,
"Icann-board ICANN" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>>,
"Accountability Community"
<accountability-cross-community@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:accountability-cross-community@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
CCWG Colleagues,
The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised
that may result in the reduction of the GAC's ability to participate in
community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of
thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or
even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it
is being) sidelined. The Board's concerns with this issue are not about Board
removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model.
The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and
fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long
supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate
escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN
community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say
that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within
ICANN's bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder
model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be
maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of
governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new
issues with the acceptance of ICANN's model undermining the work of the CCWG.
We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of
ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our
opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how
advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a
graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline
of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the
implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which
is genuinely good for everyone.
We encourage you to share the CCWG's proposal with the Chartering Organizations
while the dialog on this outstanding point continues.
Thank you,
Steve Crocker
Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@xxxxxxxxx>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|