[CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment

[Nigel Roberts]

Or in other words: 'the Board rejects the membership model'
Is that not the reality?

My personal view is that I feel it would be more helpful if that was 
simply stated directly, along with the  Board's reasons, rather than 
sugar-coating it.


On 27/09/15 01:05, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I am hearing that there may have been some misunderstandings of Steve's comments earlier about the willingness of the Board to work with the CCWG and the wider community on implementing the accountability improvements.
>
> I just want to clarify:
>
> The Board supports the Board public comments that were sent a couple weeks ago.
>
> The Board supports the improvements to accountability recommended by the CCWG - including improvements to the IRP, processes to remove Board members and the whole Board, requiring community approval of bylaws changes, and requiring the Board to work with the community to reach consensus on strategic plans, operating plans and budgets.
>
> The Board is very open to continuing to work with the CCWG to find the most effective way of implementing these important accountability changes.   The Board put forward the MEM proposal for consideration by the CCWG as an alternative to the single member model for enforcement of new accountability measures in the bylaws, but recognizes that there may be other alternatives that are more effective.    The discussions in the CCWG this afternoon  highlight that there is a way forward to discuss how to effectively implement  the accountability improvements.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>