[Party1] Methods to exercise community powers
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Thu Mar 12 20:04:19 UTC 2015
Roelof has hit on the key piece of work I was intending to spend some time
on over the weekend: the reconciliation of the powers we have developed
with the mechanisms they are implemented through.
What I am going to try and do is to present a sort of table that sets out
the key models we have (SOs/ACs acting through a veto; permanent CCWG;
standing body; delegates; members;) and identify common and different
I'll also try and do a table of the powers that sets out decision methods
and thresholds etc.
To assist me with this work, it would be AMAZING if as many templates as
possible were complete and shared with the lists by the close of Friday
Welcome all the discussion so far and to come, of course.
On 13 March 2015 at 05:57, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl> wrote:
> 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
> 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>
> Date: woensdag 11 maart 2015 22:15
> To: "wp1 at icann.org" <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.
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WP1