[Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Patrik,
CCWG is not only deals wirth SSAC
ICG needs to comment, if any , on the process.
When you say in the following paragraph
Quote
*"2. The SSAC notes that the Sole Designator will be empowered to appoint
and remove only those Directors selected by the organizations that
currently appoint voting members to the ICANN Board (i.e., At-Large
Advisory Committee (ALAC), Address Supporting Organization (ASO), Country
Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), Generic Names Supporting
Organization (GNSO), and Nominating Committee (NomCom)). It will not be
empowered to appoint or remove Board Liaisons."*
Unquote
What do you mean by "removing  only those Director"?
If you mean Individual Director, yes , you are right But if you mean the
Board recall ( the entire Board ) ,the answer is NO as in that case the
entire SOs/ ACs; depeding on the decision on the GAC STATUS will
particuiipate.in recall..
As for the Liaison ,you may be right,
Kavouss

2016-01-10 14:14 GMT+01:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:

> On 10 Jan 2016, at 13:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
> > We in CCWG also do not know how the results of the discussions in
> January will be reflected in the Final Proposal  ,in particular, if major
> changes are made how it will appears
> > a) without being subject to public comments
> > b) with public comments
> > The situation in b) could delay the process by the duration of public
> comments and its examination
> > These were some of the points that I intend to raise tomorrow evening as
> part of briefing but tou idrectly raised them
>
> As a chartering Organization, SSAC already did rise our points in:
>
> SAC-067: Overview and History of the IANA Functions (15 August 2014)
> SAC-068: SSAC Report on the IANA Functions Contract (10 October 2014)
> SAC-069: SSAC Advisory on Maintaining the Security and Stability of the
> IANA Functions Through the Stewardship Transition (10 December 2014)
> SAC-071: SSAC Comments on Cross Community Working Group Proposal on ICANN
> Accountability Enhancements (05 June 2015)
> SAC-072: SSAC Comment on the Cross Community Working Group on Naming
> Related Functions Proposal (24 June 2015)
> SAC-076: SSAC Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 3rd Draft Proposal (21
> December 2015)
>
> If you specifically look at SAC-071 and then SAC-076 you see that no new
> issues are brought up. We already have stated our view very early on in the
> process. Because of this, SSAC will of course not bring up any *new*
> things, but "just" evaluate whether the proposal put forward do address our
> issues and concerns on what issues are important.
>
> To be even more specific, in SAC-076, we only point out:
>
> 1. The SSAC supports the incorporation into the Bylaws of the periodic
> review to ensure that ICANN is “[p]reserving the security, stability, and
> resiliency of the Domain Name System.”
>
> I.e. support of what is suggested.
>
> 2. The SSAC notes that the Sole Designator will be empowered to appoint
> and remove only those Directors selected by the organizations that
> currently appoint voting members to the ICANN Board (i.e., At-Large
> Advisory Committee (ALAC), Address Supporting Organization (ASO), Country
> Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), Generic Names Supporting
> Organization (GNSO), and Nominating Committee (NomCom)). It will not be
> empowered to appoint or remove Board Liaisons.
>
> I.e. support of what is suggested.
>
> But also:
>
> 3. The SSAC advises that any process that empowers the Community to reject
> a part or the whole of the IANA Budget must be implemented in such a way as
> to ensure the stable and continuous delivery of the IANA Functions.
>
> Which is an important issue.
>
> I.e. we are at the moment down to these three issues, and if 1&2 are not
> changed, and if 3 is taken into account, then SSAC by definition will just
> do a clean support for the proposal on Jan 21, and only comments might have
> to do with suggestions for the *implementation* phase which we all know
> will be important.
>
> I.e. SSAC do feel a great responsibility to not increase delay, by for
> example introduce surprises.
>
>     Patrik
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160110/9d598b1f/attachment.html>