[CCWG-Accountability] Regarding Board treatment of the output of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

[Bruce Tonkin]

. Hello Carlos,


>>  THEN (and only then), I would also expect the Board not only to spell out their own definition of the public interest, but also clearly reason why the recommendations of the community would undermine the public interest. 

Yes - that is my expectation also.

In addition the Board is also subject to the Independent Review process for Board actions:

From: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#IV

"In addition to the reconsideration process described in Section 2 of this Article, ICANN shall have in place a separate process for independent third-party review of Board actions alleged by an affected party to be inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. "

So if the Board is not acting in the public interest as required in its Articles of Incorporation it can be challenged.



>>  I´m afraid we are not there yet and we have to stay focused on the accountability issue and hope there is no divergence in the end.

Yes - we are all looking forward to the output of this group and are working on the assumption that all recommendations can be implemented.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin