[CCWG-Accountability] Op-Ed from ITIF regarding permanent cross-community group as ultimate authority

[Balder Sørensen]

Hi all - Merry Christmas

I feel like some don't care to much other then those that have got them
self in a nice positions on ICANN.

I wait and see before I do get more active, even I started on commodore C64
back in the 1984 and today are educated IT System Admin, internet back then
was like a 300 baud modem lol

Again have a nice Christmas all, and hope we shape the future of the
internet together.

Danish Viking living in Sweden today

2014-12-17 21:21 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> The entity may be one option. However, it is not what we were thinking of
>
> First of all, no mentioned was made of GAC
>
> Second the composition of the group is not mentioned
>
> Third the footing is not mentioned
>
> Fourth the legal Framework is not mentioned and
>
> More importantly, it seems to me that every possible effort is made to
> maintain the current structure as we are talking of SO and AC .However,
> this is not the realistic composition.
>
> We need to look at other option in which the process is more democratic.
>
> All these SO and AC are not fully democratic as the stakeholder does not
> have direct role on that
>
> Please kindly do not limit us to merely existing practice and model
>
> There are variety of possibilities
>
> I know most of you are for statuesque
>
> But I and many others wants to see and examine other options
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2014-12-17 17:45 GMT+01:00 "Carlos Raúl G." <crg at isoc-cr.org>:
>>
>> Dear Steve
>>
>> Are you suggesting we include changes in the bylaws within the scope of
>> the working groups? I would have a few suggestions!
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> +506 8335 2487
>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>
>> El dic 17, 2014, a las 10:20 AM, Steve DelBianco <
>> sdelbianco at netchoice.org> escribió:
>>
>> This pertains to our discussion yesterday about a permanent,
>> cross-community ‘Membership’ group to hold ICANN board and management
>> accountable to the community.  It was described this way in draft3
>> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accountability%20suggestions%20%5Bdraft%203%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1418610739000&api=v2>
>> for work area 2:
>>
>>   Amend ICANN bylaws to recognize a permanent cross-community
>> representative structure (all ACs, SOs, Constituencies) with authority to:
>>
>>  Appoint members of Affirmation review teams
>> Review a board decision, or resolve a dispute (option to use independent
>> panel)
>> Approve changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles, with 2/3 approval
>> Approve annual proposed ICANN budget
>> Recall one or all ICANN Board members
>>
>>
>>  One of the groups proposing
>> <http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/> a
>> community of stakeholders as ultimate authority posted a relevant Op-Ed
>> <http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-plan-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability>
>> in a Washington paper today.  Daniel Castro of the Information
>> Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) wrote:
>>
>>  California state law applies since ICANN is a registered nonprofit
>> corporation in the state. As such, California law allows nonprofit
>> organizations to have statutory members. Gunnarson suggests that one way to
>> provide an effective check on the ICANN board's power is to create
>> statutory members of ICANN with extensive authority over the board. This
>> authority could include removing board members, overturning board
>> decisions, etc. The statutory members would likely include the chairs of
>> the various ICANN "supporting organizations" and "advisory committees,"
>> such as the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) responsible for IP
>> address policy and the Country Code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO)
>> responsible for managing the country code top-level domains. To ensure that
>> the statutory members do not hold too much sway, their actions could be
>> limited to situations where there is a supermajority (i.e., consensus).
>>
>>
>>         We welcome further elaboration of legal basis to enable this
>> modification to ICANN’s bylaws in conformance with California law.
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve DelBianco
>>
>> Executive Director
>>
>> NetChoice
>>
>> http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and
>> http://blog.netchoice.org
>>
>> +1.202.420.7482
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141217/b31a82ca/attachment.html>