[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Jul 26 04:37:12 UTC 2015

Dear Jor dan
Thank you for reply
regarding Quorum, I was not referring to ICA but to other Voting instances
in which the  voting threshold is mentioned but Quorum did not
Pls read my message again.
Regarding ICA.
In a) below it is mentioned


   *": The ICA is advisory and discussion based – it has no decision-making
   rights other than to select a Chair among its members, and to agree matters
   related to its own operation as a group."*

However, no mention is made of the basis on which the advice is formulated
( Unanimity, Consensus( AND NOT ROIUGH OR SOFT ONE as used by IETF which I
am uncomfortable with since many yeas as HUM for me is an imitation by
others to the noise made by few and does in no way provide any views
) , Super Majority or Simple Majority?
About IANA Budget
Let me make it clear that I did not understand the alternative option
preferred by Martin for IANA Budget as a separate Budget .
What I do not recommend is to tie the INANA Budget with ICANN General

2015-07-26 4:53 GMT+02:00 Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>:

> Thank you Keith, Alan for these comments. I've attached some comments back
> on them. All very helpful.
> I'm sorry for the confusion around the Public Accountability Forum idea.
> What I was trying to suggest was that that suggestion be incorporated in
> the ICA so two "things" aren't being created.
> From memory, the notion of the Public Accountability Forum was to bring
> together board, staff and the SO/ACs in a public exchange of views and
> questions and comments about accountability issues - a sort of open round
> table, done at an ICANN meeting once a year. The point was to help build
> mutual accountability across the ICANN system, not just vertical
> accountability - helping to solve the "who watches the watchers" conundrum.
> This could easily be done under the umbrella of the ICANN Community
> Assembly, perhaps with supplementary attendance or speaking rights e.g. for
> more of the Board, maybe the SO/AC leadership as well.
> But creating it as a separate beast seems pointless....
> cheers
> Jordan
> On 26 July 2015 at 06:54, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>  And a bunch of comments from me.
>> Alan
>> At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
>> Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. I’ve made a few proposed
>> red-lined edits in the attached, supported by comments. Happy to discuss
>> further.
>> Regards,
>> Keith
>> *From:* wp1-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org
>> <wp1-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM
>> *To:* wp1 at icann.org; Accountability Cross Community
>> *Subject:* [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
>> Hi all
>> I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN
>> Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.
>> Please see attached and debate away!  I've tried to be clear on its
>> solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the forum to
>> use for the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by advisors a while
>> ago.
>> best,
>> Jordan
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150726/2558bed4/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list