[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

[James Gannon]

With respect Bruce that is a total misleading description of the transparency proposals that are in the CCWG’s 3rd Draft, the requirements that the CCWG have identified are based entirely on the existing California corporations code that hundreds if not thousands of non-profits both smaller and larger than ICANN adhere to on a daily basis without having a large staffing contingent to support that requirement. 

Perhaps we need to have our counsel brief the board directly on our transparency requirements and the normality of them within the corporate governance of non-profits based in California to remove these fears which are not based in reality. The board also has a responsibility to educate themselves internally on the actual impact of the changes and not rely on at time outlandish interpretations of the CCWG’s work, lets all stay grounded in the reality of our proposal and work on facts and actualities and not hyperbole.

Happy holidays,

James Gannon



On 23/12/2015, 11:46 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Bruce Tonkin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

>Transparency - is also supported by the Board.     We have not made any comments against transparency.   We are wary of getting tied up in processes where we need 100 staff to answer requests for information that are not always material but serve the curiosity of the requester.    That would meant that we would not be devoting as many resources to our core mission as we should be.   It is about ensuring an affective balance.   Any information that is necessary for the ICANN community to make decisions will be made available.
>