[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi Jordan,

I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently
have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details).

I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the
leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under
the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and
just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to
come in on.

Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has
been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not
follow-up on the thoughts up.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
hi all

You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have
now been lodged:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html

I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the
MEM.

It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into
account as we refine the proposal.

An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be
developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo
stress testing, based on an initial scan.

Happy reading!

Cheers
Jordan


-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

_______________________________________________
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/20150912/1288b9c0/attachment.html>