[Party1] Accountability Mechanism Template WP-1-F | Community Veto Proposal
Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
Thu Mar 12 16:57:33 UTC 2015
Not so much a content reaction, but the template set me thinking.
Somehow, referring to your "This challenge mechanism would only apply to a narrow set of predetermined high impact board decisions such as the adoption of the organization’s strategic plan, approval of the budget, approval of bylaws, etc.” we should „merge" or „synchronize” this with the work done on powers 1A, 1B and 1C (Vetoing changing to the bylaws, vetoing the budget/strategic plan, vetoing board action in conflict with bylaws).
Veto’s with different impact should have different voting thresholds, but the rest of the „ingredients” of the powers will mostly be the same and I have the impression that as a WS/WG we are pretty much aligned on those ingredients. That also applies for template 7A- removing the board of directors, that Jordan presented in yesterdays call.
The most difficult part to discuss and decide upon now (and we are not yet aligned there and seem to be kind of touching it lightly so far) is the overarching mechanism to apply the powers. We identified: existing SO/AC structure, permanent CCWG, Statutory delegates or members, supervisory board. In his template 7A, Jordan introduces an additional one, "Community Council", and provides alternative proposals for its compilation.
The group of community representatives that vote on vetoing a board decision, intention, action, budget, removing the board etc (the group that administers the powers we identified) can –and should in my opinion- be the same for all those powers.
In Frankfurt we decided to identify the requirements first and then determine the best fitting mechanism.
We have the requirements (powers to be given to the community) largely, we are pretty much aligned on them. So we really have to start working on the mechanism to apply: what should the composition of the group (who should be in it, how do they get in: elected/appointed/ex officio, how do they get recalled) , how are positions mandated, decisions made and how do we fix al that in the bylaws. I am aware that we will need legal advice on that, but I don’t think that we have to wait with everything for that.
And let’s make it as effective, simple and executable as possible. I noted again during the call yesterday, that quite a few of us (I admit, I am one of them) are in favor of the group (whatever it will be called in the end) be composed of SO and AC chairs. Although we should not limit ourselves to that, I submit that we should really explore that option.
From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Date: woensdag 11 maart 2015 22:15
To: "wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>" <wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>>
Subject: [Party1] Accountability Mechanism Template WP-1-F | Community Veto Proposal
Attached please find the template completed for the proposal regarding a "community veto process".
Improvements, clarifications, suggestions, etc. are most welcome.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WP1