[CCWG-ACCT] Concept of some form of "independent" member

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Thanks for this Bruce, am I correct in assuming that the IO could therefore
be and 'adjunct' to one of our selected (I trust) model as a primary
reference model in our next PC??
On 17/07/2015 10:18 am, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

> I would like to see this idea considered.
>
> I can see issues with it and would not wholeheartedly endorse it at this
> stage; I think it needs further development. But it is a very constructive
> line of enquiry and should not be ruled out of order merely because it
> doesn't relate primarily to Section 5.
>
>
>
> On 17 Jul 2015, at 10:03, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>  Hello All,
>
>
>
> [Disclaimer: the following is a personal view, and not the view of the
> Board or any other Board member).
>
>
>
> During the discussion today on the three models – Empowered SO/AC
> membership model, Empowered SO/AC Designator Model, Community Mechanism as
> sole member model.
>
>
>
> I noted that one of the ideas we used in the new gTLD program was the
> concept of an “Independent Objector”.     The independent objector does not
> act on behalf of any particular person or entities but acts solely in the
> best interests of the public.
>
>
>
> From my perspective the bylaws should “empower” the community as have been
> proposed by the CCWG.
>
>
>
> My intervention is purely about an enforcement last resort.
>
>
>
> The group is considering using a panel of independent people (IRP panel)
> to determine whether the Board has followed the bylaws.   The group is also
> considering making the decisions of this panel to be binding.
>
>
>
> I have heard there is a  concern that the Board may not follow the result
> of an IRP.   Thus the proposal is some form of formal member would then be
> able to take ICANN to court meet its bylaws requirements around the IRP.
> There are lots of discussions about how to somehow turn the SO/ACs into
> members to be able to have legal enforcement powers.
>
>
>
> My suggestion was simply to create another form of “independent” person
> that would have legal standing and would be a member.   That independent
> person could then take legal action against ICANN if it didn’t follow the
> decision of the IRP where it is clearly not in the global public
> interest.   The independent person would be able to take submissions from
> the SOs and ACs and any member of the public in making their decision.  It
> is not dependent on simply those that are members of an SO and AC being
> able to get their SO/AC to take action through one of the proposed models,
> but could take into account any member of the public (including ccTLD
> managers that are not members of the ccNSO).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> (personal comment)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150717/f9e3391e/attachment.html>