[CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Mon Jul 6 20:10:57 UTC 2015
With regards to the distinction member / participant, a friendly
reminder that our group's policy is based on openness. I would like to
encourage participants AND members to keep contributing to our work as
much as their availability enables them to.
The relevant section of our Charter is as follows :
> In addition, the CCWG-Accountability will be open to any interested
> person as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering
> organization, from a stakeholder group not represented in the
> CCWG-Accountability, or may be self-appointed. Participants will be
> able to actively participate in and attend all CCWG-Accountability
> meetings, work groups and sub-work groups. However, should there be a
> need for a consensus call or decision, such consensus call or decision
> will be limited to CCWG-Accountability members appointed by the
> chartering organizations.
Le 06/07/2015 20:04, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :
> Dear Co-Chairs,
> I need to point out that neither of the two participants is a member
> of this CCWG.
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 16:28, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I do not share any of those "understandings" or "basic principles".
>> Those may be the opinions of some, but they are by no means the
>> understandings of the CCWG. I would reject these as basic principles.
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I have no problem with having a new proposal presented. However
>> it is important that there some adherence to basic principles on
>> proposals that the ccwg would not want to explore. Three areas
>> comes to mind:
>> - Its my understanding that anything that will turn some/all of
>> the SO/AC to members and thereby exposing them to legal challenge
>> is not acceptable
>> - Its my understanding that anything that allows removal of
>> individual board member without the approval of the entire(or
>> larger part) of the community is not acceptable
>> - Its my understanding that a solution that allows direct
>> community veto on certain elements like budget, strategic plan et
>> all is not acceptable but an indirect enforcement could be
>> considered (i.e using a power to get another power executed
>> Some/none of the above may be acceptable by us, but my point is
>> that there should be some focus going forward, especially if the
>> target of ICANN54 is to be meet
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community