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

[Greg Shatan]

I will take any opportunity I get to agree with Milton.  I agree with
Milton.

Greg

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

> +1 on inspection rights.
>
> Without adequate transparency there can be no meaningful accountability.
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller,
> Milton L
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:08 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin; Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update on Board discussions on the CCWG Update
>
> 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.
>
> > .     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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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/20151124/42041149/attachment.html>