[CCWG-ACCT] Update on Board discussions on the CCWG Update

[Jordan Carter]

Hi all,

On 24 November 2015 at 18:08, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> Bruce:
> Happy to see that the board comment that "Care should be taken not to
> introduce language into the
> Bylaws that reduces that clarity [about what constitutes GAC 'advice'] and
> returns the Board to a position of having to negotiate among various
> positions in its consultation processes."
>
> >
> > .     Inspection Rights and Transparency (page 12)
> >
> > The Board remains concerned about the insertion of inspection rights
> > premised on the fact that they would have been available under a member
> > structure.  The Board has already agreed that the issues of transparency,
>
> I am surprised by the resistance we are seeing to what I thought was a
> fairly clear bargain: in exchange for yielding on membership, which
> included inspection rights, the CCWG expected stronger transparency and
> inspection rights in the Sole Designator model. As has been noted many
> times in our deliberations, SD relies heavily, if not near-exclusively, on
> the threat of board member removal, and it would be impossible to have the
> information needed to utilize that enforcement power without enhanced
> transparency and inspection rights. Those enhancements are not going to
> come from vague promises to "review" the DIDP in WS2 or from additional
> information about the finances.  I would caution the board not to attempt
> to evade this point by calling for additional specifications of " what sort
> of information is expected to be requested, for what purpose and by whom,"
> as those things be specified in advance.
>

I entirely agree with Milton.


>
> > .     Removal of the Board (individual/entire) (pages 21-23)
> >
> > The Board believes that the rationale for the removal of the entire
> board or an
> > individual Board member must be clearly set out, for example, through
> > reference to a cause for removal that could be set out in a pre-service
> letter.
>
> This approach was considered and rejected by the CCWG.
>

Being able to explain the cause of the removal wasn't ruled out.

Perhaps pointing to such documents as assistance wasn't ruled out.

But requiring the cause of removal to be against grounds listed in any
documents was entirely ruled out, for sure.

best
Jordan


-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151124/a0920c12/attachment.html>