[CWG-Stewardship] Do we need an extra scenario given the requirements formulated by the CCWG-Accountability ?

[Alan Greenberg]

Maarten, I don't think you are over-simplifying, but then, that has 
been my position from the start.

RFP3B is charged with presenting such a solution to the overall CWG, 
but so far we seem to be having a hard time really getting going.

Alan

At 26/01/2015 04:18 AM, Maarten Simon wrote:

>All,
>
>I have read the CCWG-Accountability Chairs' statement and wonder if 
>we should not also discuss a scenario for the situation where the 
>CCWG-Accountability will be successful in reaching their first requirement:
>
>"Enabling community empowerment over ICANN Board decisions with 
>limited, strictly enumerated, last resort powers;"
>
>As far as I understand, these last resort powers are meant to 
>include the powers with regard to the IANA functions. I figure that 
>if the community will already have the final say over the IANA 
>functions through these last resort powers, that:
>
>1. There will be no need for an external solution where the same 
>community will be given the final say over the IANA functions;
>
>2. There is no need for an MRT;
>
>3. There might be a need for a CSC (maybe a CSC plus);
>
>But maybe I am oversimplifying things here ?
>
>Best,
>
>Maarten
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150126/c3e4a371/attachment.html>