[CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Mon Jul 6 20:10:57 UTC 2015

Dear Colleagues,

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.
> el
> -- 
> 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.
>> Greg
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     Hi,
>>     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
>>     indirectly)
>>     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
>>     Regards
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150706/e547249f/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list