[CCWG-ACCT] Presentation from Joint Townhall at ICANN53

[Drazek, Keith]

Thanks Marilyn. I also support Bruce's statement. I think your suggestion has merit, but, in the context of the transition timeline outlined by Fadi this morning, such structural change is probably a Work Stream 2 issue -- one that can be deferred provided we are assured the Board can be compelled to accept those future community consensus recommendations.

Best regards,
Keith

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 22, 2015, at 10:16 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:

I would like to both support Bruce Tonkin's statement, and ask that also those of us from the community who have experience in how the SOs elect/select their Board members, perhaps consider that we should be thinking about more of the Board being elected -- e.g. a return to 3 per SO, with then a minority appointed. This may also be a step forward toward accountability, as the nature of the Board is more grounded in the communities also responsible for key roles within ICANN, and with deep roots in the various SOs. This still leaves a significant number of Board seats for Nominating Committee appointment, but it strengthens
the ties to accountability from the Stakeholders.

This is somewhat a new proposal, but I am surprised it has not surfaced before.

Marilyn Cade

________________________________
From: Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:40:17 +0000
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Presentation from Joint Townhall at ICANN53


Just looking at page 15 of the presentation.



“The ICANN Board represents the executive entity the community may act against, as appropriate”



I recognize that this is in the context of the new community powers – but I would like to see a little more positive an broader description of the role of the ICANN Board.





Perhaps something more along the lines of:



“The entity appointed by the community to oversee the organization on the community’s behalf”



Ie the Board comes from the community – it is not really an executive branch of the staff.      In fact it is a comprised of non-executives apart from the CEO.



The board’s role is also to hold the staff accountable to deliver on the commitments agreed with the community in the strategic and operating  planning process.



While the CCWG is looking at additional accountability mechanisms – I think it should also be recognized that the Board itself is one of  the existing mechanisms, however imperfect it may be.   It is as much tied to the community through its selection process as the AC and SO councils.



Regards,

Bruce Tonkin



_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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/20150623/850c91a5/attachment.html>