[CCWG-ACCT] Townhall meeting follow-up

[Alan Greenberg]

At 22/06/2015 03:08 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>Hi Seun, all:
>
>>On 22/06/2015, at 3:55 pm, Seun Ojedeji 
>><<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hello Kavouss,
>>
>>While i agree that its good we get further 
>>clarity on the "Empowered SO/AC model", i think 
>>we have the overall high level characteristics 
>>of the model and it may be good to consider 
>>other-ways to "enforceability" other than formalising the SO/AC as well.
>
>I think the advice we have received is that 
>designator approach in the legal sense could 
>allow for enforcement of 4/6 powers, membership 
>approach 6/6, and voluntary approach 0/6. For 
>designator or member you need some kind of “legal person”.
>
>If there are other paths to enforceability I 
>would be interested to know what they are - does anybody know of any?

Yes, the proposal I made with the Subject line 
"Plan B" which gave 1/6 directly and I believe 
would result in sufficient leverage to meet the other 5 powers.

Alan



>>I for one like the empowered SO/AC model as its 
>>really an improvement to the full membership 
>>model and less complicated (seem to be an 
>>advanced designator model). Nevertheless there 
>>is still the reality that its a members model 
>>and there are cons associated with this and it 
>>may be good to put them side by side with the 
>>current "voluntary model" that operates an 
>>"Empowered bylaw" post-transition  (yeah 
>>empowered seem to be the buzz word lately ;-) )
>
>This is a beast I have never heard of, an empowered bylaw :-)
>
>J
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Kavouss 
>>Arasteh <<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>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 
>><<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>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-Ekiti
>>web:     <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>>Mobile: +2348035233535
>>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453/> 
>><mailto: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
>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Seun Ojedeji,
>>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>web:     <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>>Mobile: +2348035233535
>>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453/> 
>><mailto: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
>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150622/4c06f852/attachment.html>