[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism

Dr Eberhard Lisse el at lisse.NA
Tue Jul 28 11:06:00 UTC 2015


I also agree that Advisory Committees, especially those with a
self-select component differ inherently from Supporting
Organizations and as such must be treated differently from those.

If it only were a proper reorganization.  Currently I would much
more prefer to call it obfuscation.

I have stated ad nauseam, that not even the ccNSO or anyone for that
matter other than the individual ccTLD Manager can speak for that
ccTLD Manager.

And there is no accountability mechanism in the CCWG
Accountability's work.  Neither WS1 nor WS2.

So, how is this Minority Opinion business going to work?


On 2015-07-28 11:49, Edward Morris wrote:
> Matt, James, Robin and all,
> I guess I have trouble understanding how organisations that were
> created to provide advice under the current proposal now combined
> have a greater ultimate say in the final determination of policy
> matters, such as the budget and strategic plan, than those
> organisations created to develop policy.  The uncertainty of which
> groups will in the end will be involved is also unsettling.  I
> guess like the rest of the world I'll just have to wait until
> representatives of ICANN appear before Senator Ed Markey and other
> members of the United States Congress and explain why a complete
> reorganisation of the function, purpose and relative standing of
> components of the ICANN community was necessary to achieve
> accountability within ICANN if, in fact, the proposed model
> actually does that.
> Best,
> Ed

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list