[CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello  Kavouss,

>>   If the Board/ICANN will accept in WS1  a proposal for a strong contractual boundary on what they may do along with an external mechanism that can be invoked by the community to police that boundary, then most of the other accountability can be in WS2. 

In my personal view - this sounds reasonable in principle.


 >>  COMMENT FROM KAVOUSS 

>>  This has exactly been proposed by CWG in their outcome draft to which the Board disagreed in its recent publication for public comments and I have surprised to read that and thus asked to discuss that  matter in the agenda of this evening ,30 December CALL 

I don't believe that Board has rejected that principle.   The Board public input on the CWG proposal was focussed on the idea of replacing NTIA with a new entity Contract Co.    The assumption being that NTIA would transfers its stewardship to this new entity that in turn would have to have substantial accountability controls.

There are other ways ICANN and its Board can be held accountable via contracts, and using external mechanisms to police that the Board is complying with its bylaws and contracts.
 
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin