[CWG-Stewardship] Do we need an extra scenario given the requirements formulated by the CCWG-Accountability ?
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Jan 26 15:13:01 UTC 2015
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.
At 26/01/2015 04:18 AM, Maarten Simon wrote:
>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 ?
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CWG-Stewardship