[CCWG-ACCT] ALAC Statement on proposed accountability models

[Alan Greenberg]

Correct, the CCWG proposal is not dependant on a supermajorty of the 
Board supporting it, or in fact any Board support, since it is not 
one of the CCWG's chartering organizations.

But that is not what I said. At the point when our recommended 
changes are to be implemented, the current Bylaws must be amended. 
Under the current Bylaws, the "Bylaws of ICANN may be altered, 
amended, or repealed and new Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws 
adopted only upon action by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of 
the Board".

Under their fiduciary duty, each Board member may only vote to adopt 
new Bylaws if he/she believes it is in the interest of ICANN and its 
mission and core values to do so. It was THAT action that I was referring to.

Alan

At 18/10/2015 09:53 AM, Chartier, Mike S wrote:
>The CCWG proposal is not dependent on support "by a supermajority of 
>Board directors".
>The requirement is that there is not a determination that it is not 
>in the global public interest by a 2/3 majority of the Board.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf 
>Of Alan Greenberg
>Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 9:42 AM
>To: CCWG Accountability
>Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ALAC Statement on proposed accountability models
>
>In its formal response to the CCWG-Accountability proposal issued in 
>August 2015, the ALAC said that it could support the model being 
>proposed, but preferred something far less complex and 
>lighter-weight, and that we saw no need for the level of 
>enforceability that the proposal provided. Moreover, the ALAC had 
>specific concerns with the budget veto and the apparent lack of 
>participation of perhaps a majority of AC/SOs.
>
>In light of the reconsideration of a designator model by the CCWG, 
>along with the recommendations of the Saturday morning break-out 
>sessions, the ALAC felt that a revised statement was in order.
>Accordingly we decided, by a unanimous vote of the 14 ALAC members 
>present (with 1 not present), to withdraw support for the Membership model.
>
>I want to make it clear that this is not a "red line" decision.
>Should a Membership model become one that is generally advocated by 
>the CCWG, and supported by a supermajority of Board directors (who 
>ultimately MUST support any changes that they will be called upon to 
>approve, else they would be in violation of their fiduciary duty), 
>then the ALAC reserves its right to support such a model.
>
>Alan Greenberg
>Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community