Minority dissent relative to the NCSG & NCUC comments on CCWG Accountability Rev 3

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

This is a personal comment of minority opinion with regard to the NCSG &
NCUC comments on the CCWG Accountability rev 3.  I am submitting these
separately as neither the NCSG nor the NCUC review included a provision
for the inclusion of dissenting viewpoints.

1. I personally support Recommendation #1, inclusive of an equivalent
role for Advisory Committees  (AC) including the GAC.  I do not accept
the argument that indicates that this gives ACs responsibilities beyond
what is merited by their role as advisory.  First I argue here is very
little difference between recommendations that can be rejected and
advice that can be rejected; the discrimination that is often made about
SOs being more responsible for policy at ICANN than ACs is not well
founded. SOs and ACs should be equivalent as they have complimentary
sets of responsibilities, both of which are essential to the ICANN
organizational structure.  Beyond the lack of real difference among the
importance of SO and AC roles and responsibilities, community powers are
new powers that are not directly dependent on the specific issues for
which SOs are responsible.  These are new powers that should be
available to all AC and SO equally. The powers should only be exercised
when the entire ICANN community is in near consensus, and that consensus
cannot be found without inclusion of all those ACs willing to
participate in caring for the  well being of ICANN and its
responsibilities toward global public interest(s).

2. I am in full support of Recommendation #9.  I think it is critical to
include all of the AOC based reviews in the Bylaws.  The CCWG has
already compromised since Rev 2, in that the reviews are no longer
Fundamental Bylaws and thus are easier to change if need be.  If the AOC
reviews are not included, I think it would be inappropriate to terminate
the AOC agreement with NTIA until a new method of insuring sufficient
review mechanisms were established.

3. I support the compromise reached in Recommendation #11. Due to
political imperatives in the US as well as the rest of the
International Community, this is a difficult issue that can only be
resolved through compromise.

4. While I support the intent of Rec #10, I do agree with NCSG that the
process should be bottom up.  I also believe that it should be outward
directed and should be equivalent for all SOs and ACs, including the GAC.

Avri Doria
Personal Comment

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus