Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
Key Points:
This amendment creates a process for the ICANN community to potentially limit access to the Reconsideration Request and Independent Review Processes (collectively, "Accountability Mechanisms"). This can be achieved without a full Fundamental Bylaws Amendment process, which is typically complex and time-consuming. Also, it seems to me that this streamlined approach avoids the complexities of a full Fundamental Bylaw Amendment process.
No attachment
Potential Implications:
I would like to highlight the pros and cons of the potential implications for a balanced view. For instance, streamlining access to these processes for certain actions could potentially improve efficiency. But this will reduce transparency by limiting access to review mechanisms and this could raise concerns about transparency and accountability.
Also, the high bar for approval aims to ensure community consensus for such restrictions. While Section 4.1 is not considered a Fundamental Bylaw, changes impacting the Accountability Mechanisms (considered Fundamental) necessitate treating it as such. This proposal offers a way to potentially streamline ICANN's accountability mechanisms while maintaining safeguards through a rigorous approval process. However, the potential for reduced transparency and the implications of treating this as a Fundamental Bylaw Amendment need careful consideration.