<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Dear All</div><div>I of not agree with such interpretation . If the chair of dome SO /AC wish ti gave delegation of authority that should be given case y case and on full consensus basis. These representatives do not gave @ CARTE BKSCHE"to speak on behalf of the SO and AC but representing themselves or their affiliated entity</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 27 Jan 2016, at 19:23, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
Seun, we went over this at great length many months ago. Once a
representative is named, they do have the power to act on behalf of the
AC/SO. It is up to the AC/SO to put process in place to limit and/or
control it.<br><br>
If I were to abuse my position as ALAC Chair, I would expect the ALAC to
take action and this is no different.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 27/01/2016 09:46 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Well even if we don't need it
now. It will be good to recognise that it's yet to be discussed. However
considering that the UA is required once board approves the proposal then
it may be good to determine and conclude on this soon enough. <br><br>
That said, it may be good to be sure that those member representatives
have no power to act unilaterally. I would have thought using 1 stone to
kill to birds will be good i.e making the various chairs/leaders of SO/AC
to serve is such capacity. That gives some level of responsibility and
security on that various SO/AC can always boot out their leader whenever
required.<br><br>
Regards<br>
On 27 Jan 2016 15:02, "Kavouss Arasteh"
<<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">
kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Dear All,<br>
</dd><dd>I think people contuinue to go to the last milimiter of the road and
generate a new discussion and debate about the number of représentatives
in Unincorprated associattion représentatives and start a new
round of bebates and dispute<br>
</dd><dd>Do we need this information now pls ?<br>
</dd><dd>Kavouss <br><br>
</dd><dd>2016-01-27 6:14 GMT+01:00 Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
>:<br>
<dl>
<dd>As per my comment in the CCWG meeting earlier today, here is a list
of the issues still to be resolved from the ALAC statement on the 3rd
Draft Proposal.<br><br>
<br>
</dd><dd>There are three issues currently under discussion.<br><br>
</dd><dd>1. ICANN Mission and ensuring that contract provisions will not be
invalidated or be unenforceable.<br><br>
</dd><dd>2. The issue regarding market mechanisms.<br><br>
</dd><dd>3. Human Rights (original issue resolved but pending final
wording).<br><br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Issues to be addressed.<br><br>
<br>
</dd><dd>1. The first is a relatively trivial one and easily addressed. Rec#
4, in the section on replacing the Interim Board states:<br><br>
</dd><dd>"SOs, ACs, and the Nominating Committee will develop replacement
processes that ensure the Interim Board will not be in place for more
than 120 days."<br><br>
</dd><dd>The ALAC request that this be changed to:<br><br>
</dd><dd>"SOs, ACs, and the Nominating Committee will develop processes
designed to replace Interim Board members within 120 days."<br><br>
</dd><dd>By removing the word "ensure", this change, while not
altering the intent, goes along with the recent practice of not putting
hard deadlines in the Bylaws, deadlines that for one reason or another
may not be met in a particular instance.<br><br>
<br>
</dd><dd>2. Rec# 10, AoC. The Recommendation suggests that as part of
organizational reviews, the AC/SO's accountability be included in the
review. The ALAC suggests that this be enshrined in Article IV, Section
4.1 of the ICANN Bylaws.<br><br>
<br>
</dd><dd>3. On page 14, item 2 of the draft proposal (and on page 5 of Annex
1), it says "The members of the unincorporated association would be
representatives of ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory
Committees that wish to participate." We have never discussed how
such members are identified. Presumably we should to specify that each
participating AC/SO must identify who it's representative will
be.<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br>
<br>
</dd></dl><br><br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br>
</dd></dl></blockquote>
</div></blockquote></body></html>