<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Robin,</div><div>Thank you very much for your suggestion.</div><div>It deserved to be carefully examined among one of the possible options while we need to also look at other options.</div><div>Coming back to your suggestion which already supported by some colleagues, I have few legal and administrative queries which I come back to you once the analysis are over.</div><div>However, there is a very important element which pushing hard on our head and that is time constrains</div><div>We need to address that.</div><div>It seems that some colleagues are in hurry to have something. </div><div>I also wish to have something but something which is carefully analysed, and supported by everybody and fully responds to the requirement .</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-01-27 14:28 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">D</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-01-27 10:32 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard Lisse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na" target="_blank">el@lisse.na</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">I fail to see comments on the "line item" issue of stakeholders.<br>
<br>
Neither the GNSO, GAC, ALAC etc will have powers over ccNSO (policy)<br>
and/or individual ccTLDs. Nor something as vague as a "Community".<br>
<br>
<br>
Unless this is addressed I doubt this would fly.<br>
<br>
Or rather I know it will not.<br>
<br>
And, I would most certainly use one of my membership objections.<br>
<br>
Not negotiable.<br>
<br>
el<br>
<span><br>
On 2015-01-27 10:54, Fiona Asonga wrote:<br>
> Robin,<br>
><br>
> Your proposal make so much sense and will give the community an<br>
> appropriate level of engagement and oversight without creating<br>
> additional structures.<br>
><br>
> Fiona Asonga<br>
><br>
</span>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> *From: *"Robin Gross" <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>><br>
> *To: *"David Post" <<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com" target="_blank">david.g.post@gmail.com</a>>,<br>
> "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a> Community"<br>
> <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 22, 2015 3:48:03 AM<br>
> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] proposal for how community could be delegated<br>
<div><div>> to make some decisions<br>
><br>
> To flesh this proposal out a bit further: The "Community" could<br>
> overturn a board decision on a limited number of key issues via an<br>
> ombudsman mediated process in which a decision could be rendered<br>
> via the "Community". Each individual component of the Community<br>
> (for example, GAC, GNSO, AT-Large, CCNSO, etc.) would have a<br>
> proportional weight in the over-all decision of the Community.<br>
> Currently, each of these individual components already has<br>
> internal mechanisms in place to make decisions (take policy<br>
> positions, elections, etc.) through which the decision of the<br>
> Community is actually rendered. This way, we don't need to create<br>
> a new super-structure to be "Representational". We can do away<br>
> with that additional layer entirely - creating the "super board"<br>
> because decisions can be made in the individual component's<br>
> internal mechanisms. This would be a much more bottom-up method<br>
> of reaching a "Decision of the Community" regarding a particular<br>
> board decision. The ombudsman could act as the facilitator of<br>
> this process: put the issue to vote, collect and tally the votes<br>
> of the individual components to render the "Decision of the<br>
> Community". The board would then be required to adopt this<br>
> Decision of the Community unless it voted (unanimous or<br>
> super-majority) to not adopt the Decision of the Community, which<br>
> could be stipulated to in bylaws. The board would retain ultimate<br>
> decisional authority as required by Cal Corp law, but it would be<br>
> very difficult for it to ignore the bottom-up Decision of the<br>
> Community. Coupled with a mechanism to recall recalcitrant board<br>
> members, this overall model could solve many of our problems and<br>
> remake ICANN in a more bottom-up fashion without too much<br>
> structural redesign. Thoughts?<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Robin<br>
</div></div>[...]<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)<br>
el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: <a href="tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733" target="_blank" value="+264811246733">+264 81 124 6733</a> (cell)<br>
PO Box 8421 \ /<br>
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/<br>
</font></span><div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>