[CCWG-ACCT] ALAC Statement on proposed accountability models

[Chartier, Mike S]

Agreed.
Moreover even the Board consideration step comes AFTER submission to the SO/AC, so the Board would consider the view of the community, not visa versa.



On Oct 18, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

We won't know about the bylaws vote until we are well into implementation. Which requires the Chartering Organizations to have approved the Report some months earlier.

On Sunday, October 18, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
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 Under the current Bylaws, the "Bylaws of ICANN may be altered, amended, or repealed and new Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws adopted only upon action by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the Board".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

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community