[CWG-Stewardship] Agenda item 5 - Alternate proposals
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Dec 18 03:55:31 UTC 2014
I note that item 5 on the agenda for the 18
December meeting is "Due consideration of
alternative proposal (not to exclude other proposals)".
I also note that there has been significant
discussion about the CWG Stewardship and the CCWG
Accountability, their inter-relationship and co-dependency.
In light of this, I would like to bring the CWGs
attention to a recent e-mail on the CCWG list (copied below).
Although I believe that the ALAC proposal
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/msg00011.html)
is the only such alternative presented here, it
is not alone. I am not advocating the exact
details of the proposal referenced in the message
(see
http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/
and
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-plan-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability),
but it does demonstrate that we are not unique in
wanting a far simpler mode for the new IANA
coupled with real multistakeholder accountability in ICANN.
I believe that the CCWG *WILL* deliver and I
think that we need to factor that into our
deliberations. Specifically, is there really a
need for the complexity, cost and associated
issues of Contract Co. given the same level of
control could be provided by a change such as this?
Alan
===================
>From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
>To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:20:43 +0000
>Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Op-Ed from ITIF
>regarding permanent cross-community group as ultimate authority
>
>
>This pertains to our discussion yesterday about
>a permanent, cross-community "Membership" group
>to hold ICANN board and management accountable
>to the community. It was described this way in
><https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accountability%20suggestions%20%5Bdraft%203%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1418610739000&api=v2>draft3
>for work area 2:
>
>Amend ICANN bylaws to recognize a permanent
>cross-community representative structure (all
>ACs, SOs, Constituencies) with authority to:
>
>Appoint members of Affirmation review teams
>Review a board decision, or resolve a dispute
>(option to use independent panel)
>Approve changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles, with 2/3 approval
>Approve annual proposed ICANN budget
>Recall one or all ICANN Board members
>
>One of the groups
><http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/>proposing
>a community of stakeholders as ultimate
>authority posted a relevant
><http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-plan-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability>Op-Ed
>in a Washington paper today. Daniel Castro of
>the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) wrote:
>
>California state law applies since ICANN is a
>registered nonprofit corporation in the state.
>As such, California law allows nonprofit
>organizations to have statutory members.
>Gunnarson suggests that one way to provide an
>effective check on the ICANN board's power is to
>create statutory members of ICANN with extensive
>authority over the board. This authority could
>include removing board members, overturning
>board decisions, etc. The statutory members
>would likely include the chairs of the various
>ICANN "supporting organizations" and "advisory
>committees," such as the Address Supporting
>Organization (ASO) responsible for IP address
>policy and the Country Code Name Supporting
>Organization (ccNSO) responsible for managing
>the country code top-level domains. To ensure
>that the statutory members do not hold too much
>sway, their actions could be limited to
>situations where there is a supermajority (i.e., consensus).
>
>We welcome further elaboration of legal basis to
>enable this modification to ICANNâs bylaws in
>conformance with California law.
>
>Steve DelBianco
>Executive Director
>NetChoice
>
><http://www.netchoice.org/>http://www.NetChoice.org
>and <http://blog.netchoice.org/>http://blog.netchoice.org
+1.202.420.7482
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141217/7a9cb065/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list