<div dir="ltr">Hi all<div><br></div><div>I'm thinking about what the Avenue regarding Community looks like. This is to spur discussion and thinking.</div><div><br></div><div>From the tree diagram, the limb this seems focused on is "Approval of Key Decisions", with the three subcategories mentioned are changes of bylaws, acting outside bylaws, budgets & strategic plan. It seems to me that the limb "Remove board members" fits here too.</div><div><br></div><div>Should other limbs be within this work? (We may discuss this in the meeting, which is about to resume)</div><div><br></div><div>The *purpose* of this Avenue/area of work seems to be something like this - first draft, just to get people thinking:</div><div><br></div><div>"Accountability improvements through increasing the community's ability to be the ultimate authority within ICANN." </div><div><br></div><div>The *focus* would be on ICANN as a whole and its general operations. </div><div><br></div><div>In particular, none of this work should (in my opinion) be able to be used within the general ICANN policy development or approval processes - they're already well provided for, and the Review and Redress Avenue should improve that situation. </div><div><br></div><div>The sorts of *powers* that have been mentioned are to do things like (these are just examples):</div><div><br></div><div>* approve the Strategic Plan, Business/Operating Plan and Budget (or refer it back to the ICANN Board for further work)</div><div>* approve proposed changes to the bylaws (or refer them back to the ICANN Board for further work)</div><div>* establish that a particular action was outside the Bylaws and refer it back to the ICANN Board for reconsideration</div><div>* establish community opposition to a Board or Staff decision and recommit it to the ICANN Board for reconsideration</div><div>* invalidate a decision of the ICANN Board</div><div>* remove a member of the ICANN Board or the entire ICANN Board</div><div><br></div><div>It seems reasonable that this area should be focused on creating and defining powers that don't currently exist, or clearly flagging where it is discussing a power that does exist and why it needs to be considered here. </div><div><br></div><div>In terms of mechanisms, some have been mentioned: creating membership or delegateship under California law; creating within the bylaws a CWG or similar with these "uber" powers. There are no doubt other options but this is where legal advise will be helpful. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Look forward to your thoughts</div><div><br></div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div><div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.</i><br><br></div></div>
</div></div>