[CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2

[Jonathan Zuck]

Kavouss,
I’m not sure I understand the question.  I mean that ability for the community to enforce its will, more quickly than waiting for a turnover of the board in 2 years. That has always been the bare essentials of WS1 prior to a transition: the ability of the community to affect change.

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 6:28 AM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2

Dear Jonathan
Pls kindly further elaborate what s do you mean by " the ability to spill the board"
Regards
Kavouss

2015-09-29 3:30 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>:
All truth is said in jest.


On Monday, September 28, 2015, avri doria <avri at ella.com<mailto:avri at ella.com>> wrote:
Hmm. An April 1 RFC as a model solution for our issues with the board. Might indeed be the right approach.

Or was that just by way of comment. For example an explanation of why putting things in ws2 is just silly and won't work.


avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>>
Date:09/28/2015 8:42 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck at actonline.org<mailto:jzuck at actonline.org>>
Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2

Thanks Jonathan.

I find RFC 1925 most instructive when dealing with circumstances such as the one we currently find ourselves in.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925.txt


Cheers,



Chris

On 29 Sep 2015, at 09:29 , Jonathan Zuck <jzuck at actonline.org<mailto:jzuck at actonline.org>> wrote:

Here's a flyer. How about we make the determination that converting ICANN to a membership organization is a WS2 initiative and design a stress test for whatever we come up with in the interim that examines the community's ability to make this transformation post transition. With the right set of bylaws changes, the ability to spill the board, etc. we might be able to meet the WS1 requirements of "sufficient leverage to accomplish WS2." We could keep it pretty simple, eliminate the deadline, the NTIA, etc. and work towards a membership model over the following year and spill the board if they resist. I know that spilling the board is something we don't regard as practical leverage for some random policy decision but I think it's pretty credible for a restructuring. Thoughts?

Jonathan

_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150929/25d7819a/attachment.html>