[CCWG-ACCT] ALAC Statement on proposed accountability models

[Alan Greenberg]

I think that my answer to Ken addressed this. If not, let me know.

For the record, we have no private access to Board members to 
ascertain that 11 member definitively will support the Bylaw changes 
when they come to the Board. But we will guide our action based on 
our perception of Board support. Speaking only for myself and given 
the vast number of hours I have personally invested in the CWG/CCWG 
and the internal At-Large processes supporting the ALAC Members, I 
see NO benefit in putting forward a proposal, no matter how bottom-up 
it is, if there is a high probability that it will not be implmented.

Alan

At 18/10/2015 10:35 AM, James Gannon wrote:
>Hi Alan much thanks for this statement its appreciated.
>Can I ask for you to clarify the below statement, is the ALAC 
>stating that in order for the ALAC to change its position it has set 
>out an internal requirement that a supermajority of the board must 
>express their support for membership or is this referring to the 
>board vote which requires a supermajority of board members to vote 
>against the proposal as being not in the global public interest?
>
>-James Gannon
>
>
>
>
>On 18/10/2015, 2:42 p.m., 
>"accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Alan 
>Greenberg" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on 
>behalf of alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> >hould 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