[CCWG-ACCT] ALAC Statement on proposed accountability models

[Rubens Kuhl]

Alan,

I think it would be more interesting to know whether ALAC is opposed to enforcement of budget veto power, which at this point seems to be the most significative difference between designator and member model, or any other reason to prefer one over the other. That would make for an easier way to accommodate ALAC expectations, hopes and fears into the proposal, instead of looking at the outcome (which is the model decision). 


Rubens

> On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> 
> 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