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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Jul 17 09:04:16 UTC 2015


That bypasses the community structures entirely, as well as those
communities that are not composed of legal persons.  For instance, all of
those pesky non-contracted parties in the GNSO's Commercial Stakeholder
Group and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, and also the ALAC (and SSAC and
RSSAC, for that matter).

The "directly affected parties" language (and your list) tends to exclude
these groups, but they cannot be excluded from the multistakeholder model
or the community.


On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Bruce Tonkin <
Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> Also even apart from the language used in the bylaws, ICANN can also agree
> some of the powers via contracts with directly affected parties - e.g. gTLD
> registries, ccTLD managers, and gTLD registrars amongst others.
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Friday, 17 July 2015 10:55 AM
> To: Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Concept of some form of "independent" member
> Hello Greg,
> >>  Members have a legally distinct role in a nonprofit corporation,
> particularly with regard to authority and decision-making vis a vis the
> Board.
> Yes I get that.   Members have a series of statutory  rights under the law
> of where the membership organization is incorporated.
> However my understanding is that we are actually explicitly enshrining the
> powers that the community seeks into the bylaws.
> So then surely the issue is then whether ICANN is adhering to the new
> bylaws.
> The IRP is a mechanism to adjudicate if there is a dispute about whether
> the Board is adhering to these bylaws.   I hope that there are also some
> lighter weight mechanisms - reconsideration/ombudsman as a step before
> needing to use an IRP (which currently seems to cost hundreds of thousands
> of dollars  and that is just the panel's costs, and take years to resolve).
> Then there is a need to ensure that the Board abides by the outcome of the
> IRP.
> My proposal was how to deal with the unlikely situation where the Board
> goes against an IRP panel.
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150717/566f9088/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list