ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15]


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

Comments from RSSAC.

  • To: comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Comments from RSSAC.
  • From: Lars-Johan Liman <liman@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 15:15:32 +0200

Dear CCWG,

Thank you for extending the comment period for us. We had a lively
discussion, but did not reach much consensus. Please find below comments
from the Root Server System Advisory Committee to your Accountability
Draft Proposal.

                                
                                Best regards,
                                On behalf of RSSAC
                                  /Lars-Johan Liman
                                   RSSAC co-chair

#----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                5 June 2015

RSSAC has reviewed the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Draft
Report. We have no consensus comments on the substance of the CCWG
proposal at this point, as we understand the purpose of the
CCWG-Accountability group's efforts but find the impacts of the
current proposal difficult to evaluate.

We do note that in the past, the purpose of RSSAC was to act in an
advisory role to the ICANN board and community.  RSSAC is happy to
continue in its role as an advisory body.  However, the proposal from
the CWG also places additional responsibilities and requirements upon
RSSAC that need careful consideration. As a specific observation, some
RSSAC members are uncomfortable with the membership mechanism proposed
as long as RSSAC is structured as a board appointed committee under
the current charter. RSSAC currently has no plans or capacity to
undertake a re-structuring that would eliminate this concern. In order
to create a positive consensus view in RSSAC about the CCWG proposal
we need to know a great deal more about the implementation and
operation of the structures and procedures it discusses.  As a
specific point, we surmise that formal action by the members would be
rare, not likely in the course of normal operations and decisionmaking
in ICANN, but it would help us to have that view confirmed.

We note that the proposed bylaws revision (p. 20) includes a
placeholder for language relating to the root server system in an
updated description of ICANN's mission. We expect to contribute
proposed language on this point as the process of revising the bylaws
proceeds.

#----------------------------------------------------------------------


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