[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding members
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sun May 24 03:29:13 UTC 2015
Thanks Bruce.
I suggested this about a week ago, and asked whether there we re any
legal impediments for doing this, and why the (in my mind) far more
convoluted) UA solution was proposed in its stead. I hope that we can
get advice from our legal team on this.
Alan
At 23/05/2015 04:41 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>I have been reading the various discussions on the topic of using
>members as a way of holding ICANN accountable.
>
>Speaking personally - I think the concept of members can work.
>
>My advice though would be to try to keep it simple. The idea of
>creating separate unincorporated versions of the GAC, ccNSO etc -
>just adds complexity that makes it more and more difficult for
>outsiders to really understand how ICANN works. It already takes
>years to understand how the GNSO or ALAC processes work.
>
> From my personal perspective - we should just allow the SOs and ACs
> to appoint their chairs/vice-chairs or nominated representatives as
> "members" of ICANN for a term that matches the term of their
> office. This seems to require minimal change in ICANN's existing structure.
>
>Each individual that is selected to become a member of ICANN could
>then sign an agreement with ICANN that ensures that ICANN provides
>some indemnity for the member, provided that the member operates in
>accordance with the direction of their SO and AC through a properly
>constituted motion according to the procedures of that group. Ie
>the member would have a very narrow role to basically convey the
>decision of the respective SO and AC.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce Tonkin
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list