[CCWG-ACCT] A modest proposal to start the week

[Alan Greenberg]

To the extent that we ware willing to rely on a 
Board with good faith to honour the Bylaws (as 
they have to date - a Board could have removed 
the concept of AC/SO Directors if they had 
chosen), I beleive that is indeed correct.

Alan

At 01/06/2015 03:42 PM, Roelof Meijer wrote:
>Alan,
>
>"The prime power is to challenge ICANN on its decisions and
>to ratify some of those decisions²
>
>The way I understand it, we do not need either UA¹s or ICANN to become a
>membership organization, to do that
>
>Best,
>
>Roelof
>
>
>
>
>On 01-06-15 16:59, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> >I support Avri.
> >
> >First, suing ICANN is NOT the only power they have. That is a last
> >resort power that we are told will never (well nearly never) be
> >exercised. The prime power is to challenge ICANN on its decisions and
> >to ratify some of those decisions. As described in the community
> >mechanisms in the CCWG Draft Proposal.
> >
> >We are putting these mechanisms in place because we have a lack of
> >trust in the good judgement of the Board. But we are will now have an
> >AC/So either appoint individuals, or appoint individuals to a UA. And
> >since that AC/SO has no legal status, it cannot "enforce" that its
> >representatives are truly following their directives. But we will
> >trust them because they are part of our community. But if we appoint
> >this same person to the Board, they are no longer trustworthy.
> >
> >And no doubt these views are also out of order.
> >
> >Alan
> >
> >At 01/06/2015 10:45 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 01-Jun-15 10:35, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> >> > What is it you fear that these "unaccountable UA" might do?
> >>
> >>That they not be accountable to the stakeholder they are allegedly
> >>accountable to.
> >>
> >>As has been brought up by more than one of our advisers, if they are the
> >>main point of ICANN accountability, it must be possible to guarantee
> >>their accountability as much as we need to guarantee the Board's
> >>accountability when it hold the token for ICANN accountability.
> >>
> >>Having been a member or observer of many of these entities I have fond
> >>that they are often disorganized, ruled by a few strong personalities in
> >>a sea of apathy, and given to making up rules on the fly when needed.
> >>They do not even necessarily follow the rules htey have agreed to in the
> >>charers, though some do, not all of them.  And for the most part, though
> >>they are supposed to transparent, most aren't.
> >>
> >>So what i fear is that they are accountable to none except the few
> >>strong personalities.
> >>
> >>So if we want to base our trust in ICANN on a membership model, we need
> >>to make sure it is at least as accountable as what we have now.
> >>
> >>avri
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>---
> >>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >>http://www.avast.com
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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