[Area 4] Comments from Mr. Kavouss Arasteh (GAC, ICG)

[James M. Bladel]

Hello WG4 team:

I recognize that there have been several attempts to catalog the various scenarios and situations that would benefit from improved accountability mechanisms.  But as a conversation starter, I would propose that there are really only two contingencies:

   * The ICANN Board takes action that is opposed by a significant majority (or unanimously) of stakeholders (SO/AC), or
   * The ICANN Board refuses to take action despite significant support (or unanimity) of stakeholders (SO/AC).

It's my opinion that addressing these two over-arching contingencies will naturally sweep up nearly all other scenarios.

Thoughts?

Thanks-

J.


From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 at 19:00
To: ccwg-accountability4 <ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org>>
Subject: [Area 4] Comments from Mr. Kavouss Arasteh (GAC, ICG)

Dear all,

Here attached is Mr. Arasteh's first contribution to the work of the CCWG-Accountability as he shared on the main mailing list on 15 December. Below I've copied an excerpt of his document that relates to WA4.


2.4                   Working Group 4
This scope of work of this Group is to identify contingencies (especially in relation with WS1)
The above-mentioned scope is quite vague and ambiguous


Best,
Grace
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20141219/061fb6cf/attachment-0001.html>