[CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment

[Stephen Deerhake]

I'm not sure that all the "blame" should go to Steve and the Board.

 

It is very clear to me, from both the recent blog post, and what Larry Strickland said yesterday, that NTIA will REJECT the proposal as it's shaping up, both because of its complexity and because of the proposed membership model.

 

What Larry stated yesterday was reinforced today by Ira.  Thus it's my contention that if the WG continues down this path, this project will fail.  Maybe that's what some members of the WG want; I don't know…

 

Cheers.

Stephen Deerhake

 

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 8:19 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment

 

Hi all

 

I think it is worth also putting on the record Steve's clarification in the Adobe room:

 

"The Board does not support the single member model.  We are unified in wanting to work with the community to find practical solutions to achieve the additional levels of accountability sought by the community including the ability 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." 

 

 

My understanding from this and from the rest of Steve's remarks this afternoon is quite clear: it is that if the CCWG comes to consensus around the Single Member model, the Board will not accept that proposal.

 

Bruce, Steve, any other directors: 

 

If I am wrong, please let me know.

 

thanks,

Jordan

 

 

On 26 September 2015 at 17:05, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> > 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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community





 

-- 

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive 
InternetNZ


+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email:  <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> jordan at internetnz.net.nz 
Skype: jordancarter

Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>  


A better world through a better Internet 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150926/81ca1869/attachment.html>