ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

NetChoice general comments on ATRT Draft Recommendations

  • To: "atrt-draft-proposed-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx" <atrt-draft-proposed-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: NetChoice general comments on ATRT Draft Recommendations
  • From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 18:05:44 +0000

Below are 3 general comments about the ATRT Draft Proposed Recommendations.

** Recc 1, Board Collective Skill-set **

I believe the draft recommendation leaves doubt as to how strictly the
NomCom must base its candidate selections on identified
skill-set deficiencies with the incumbent Board.

Recc 1c calls for ICANN to do an annual formal review to compare the
actual skill-set of incumbent Directors with the
required collective skill-set.
Recc 1d seems to say that the NomCom would specifically seek to fill the
shortfalls in the Board's collective
skill-set, in the way it solicits and selects the next slate of Directors.
I believe you should be more explicit about whether skill-set deficiencies
should constrain or merely guide the
NomCom's work. 
** Recc 10, Explanations of Board decisions **
It is a fine idea to require the Board to explain why it chose to consider
a matter. I believe we should *also* require the
board to explain when it formally declines to take a matter under

** Recc 12, GAC advice  **

This recommendation includes this incorrect statement that could set
dangerously incorrect expectations about GAC advice to ICANN: '...that
triggers the Board's obligation to follow the advice or work with the GAC
to find a mutually acceptable solution.'

The findings on page 27 give a more accurate statement of ICANN
obligations to consider GAC advice:
'Specifically, if the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not
consistent with the GAC advice 'it shall so inform the Committee and state
the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice.'    At that point,
the GAC and the Board are obligated to 'try, in good faith and in a timely
and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.' If no such
solution can be found, the ICANN Board 'will state in its final decision
the reasons why the GAC advice was not followed.'

I recommend fixing Recc 12 so it is clear that the ICANN Board *may*
disagree with the GAC, so long as it explains why it disagrees.  A
'mutually acceptable solution' is not required under ICANN's present

Submitted by 
Steve DelBianco

Executive Director
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy