[CCWG-ACCT] Townhall meeting follow-up

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
First of all ,let us wait for a clear way forward to be on the Table be
fore our next meeting on Wednesday
Secondly, if we clearly distinguish between rights to participate to voting
of any or all of the six/seven powers as well as  issues relying to IRP
FROM issue of empowerment ,requiring membership ( at least one member to
have a stand for enforce certain decisions /conclusion made through voting
,many questions would be narrowed down to fewer numbers .
Pls kindly advise on that
Kavouss

2015-06-22 18:52 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Dear all,
>
> First i like to thank the Co-Chairs for responding to all the questions
> during the townhall meeting. Milton mentioned 2 things and i like to use
> that to provide my feedback/suggestions:
>
> - Purpose of the CCWG:
>
> IMO, i think the purpose of the CCWG is to recommend ways to improve ICANN
> accountability but enforceability could just be one of such features and
> not the ultimate goal.
>
> - Enforceability solutions other than membership:
> Considering the complications relating to the various membership models
> that has been suggested, there is obvious need to consider what is
> achievable within the current structure and i think everything is
> achievable except enforceability. Puting that in mind, i think the CCWG
> report in summary has provided the following (amongst others):
>
> - They have looked into the current bylaw and proposed edits that would
> ensure community engagement in the board decision making process which is
> not existing at the moment
> - They have proposed ways by which the suggested edits to the bylaw once
> implemented can be updated (fundamental bylaw)
>
> I think these 2 items are critical accountability enhancement and once
> implemented would have provided ICANN board with some specific guideline on
> how to approach issues as accordingly.
>
> So it seem to me that we will already have some enforceability without
> actually requiring membership since an organisation board is required to
> obey/comply with its bylaw. So if the bylaw says; before you can do xyz, it
> needs to go through abc process, why would the board not follow/obey those
> direction as defined in the bylaw?
>
> As a follow-up to my question about ICANN board complying with its bylaw.
> I will like to ask the following questions:
>
> - Has there been any known scenario where ICANN board at the moment did
> not obey its current bylaw?
> - If ICANN board does not obey its bylaw, what its legal implication to
> the board members with regards to their mandate?
> - Is it possible for board members to sign a mandate upon induction
> indicating that they would resign if the community (through a defined
> process) determined that they did not follow the organisation's bylaw?
>
> Regards
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150622/7ccdfbe4/attachment.html>