Avri,
This is quite an unsatisfactory explanation. 
Paragraph 224 is part of an enumeration of ICANN's _Core Values_.

There is a BIG difference between a core value that says merely "we will follow the advice of governments and publilc authorities"  and an advice that says, "we will follow the advice of governments and public authorities as long as it is not inconsistent with our other fundamental commitments and core values." 

Because we are talking about _ICANN's_ core values and mission, it goes without saying that GAC does not and need not accept responsibility for making sure that its advice is consistent with ICANN's core values and mission. It is, of course, ICANN board's responsibility to accept that responsibility. But the language you have proposed makes it clear that ICANN's board is NOT accepting that responsibility. You really let them off the hook. 


-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 7:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG Accountability Report is Now Out

Hi,

The point was that the Board is responsible for making sure the advice it accepts is consistent with the bylaws.  GAC does not accept that responsibility.  Then again, I know of no other ACSO that is making that decsion of whether their recommendations or advice are consistent with the bylaws..  It is up to the Board, and the the IRP to decide whether something is consistent with the bylaws.  That is their job.

As for whether it is a bad as it looks to you, probably not.

avri


On 03-Aug-15 19:00, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Robin and other fellow NCSG-ers:
>
>  
>
> Regarding human rights, I have been going through the CCWG report and 
> found something very disturbing.
>
>  
>
> On page 33, which is part of the section on "Principles" I noticed a 
> big loophole opening up in the attempt to constrain ICANN's actions by 
> defining a limited mission. Paragraph 224 has been modified in a way 
> that makes it LESS restrictive than before. It says that ICANN must 
> take into account advice of governments, and the former language about 
> how the advice must be consistent with its bylaws and its fundamental 
> commitments and core values has been struck out.
>
>  
>
> Can anyone who was in Paris tell me how this happened and whether it 
> really is as bad as it looks?
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf 
> Of *Robin Gross
> *Sent:* Monday, August 3, 2015 5:06 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG Accountability Report is Now Out
>
>  
>
> The CCWG-Accountability report is out:
>
>   http://bit.ly/1IUzwJB <http://t.co/5nYZyX5nII>
>
>  
>
> One important and positive recommendation is the report is that ICANN 
> include a commitment to human rights in its bylaws.  But there's a lot 
> of other significant changes in there, so please read the report.
>
>  
>
> NCSG will have a webinar on 5 August to go over this report and have 
> any discussion on it participants want.
>
>  
>
> The comment period is now for 40 days.
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>


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