[CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

Tue Jan 6 16:38:44 UTC 2015

If we cannot have the Board commit to a mechanism by which the community can
control the Board in the event it chooses not to follow community advice how
can we give the Board the ultimate authority that the transition will be
giving it?  Contrary to your point, many Board allow outside
auditors/controllers - at least they do in corporations that I'm familiar
with.  Many other Boards also acknowledge subservience to shareholders (the
equivalent here of the community).  Indeed, the much rarer circumstance is
one where a Board asserts unreviewable authority  ...

Paul

**NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***

509 C St. NE

Washington, DC 20002

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066

<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

From: Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 10:18 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin; Greg Shatan
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

>mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items in the
event of resistance from ICANN management and Board

How can we reasonably expect the (ICANN) board to commit to such a proposal
(to force implementation of items that they do not agree to)? It would do so
blindly, not knowing beforehand what those items would be. No sensible board
would ever agree to this. And should not, as we as a working group are not
all-knowing. And we know that the chances that the public comments on our
proposals will show full consensus are nil. And even if there was a full
consensus in the public comments, we know for sure that this does not equal
public consensus.

Cheers,

Roelof Meijer

SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE
NETHERLANDS
T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05  
roelof.meijer at sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl>  |
<http://www.sidn.nl/> www.sidn.nl

From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> >
Date: dinsdag 6 januari 2015 15:02
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> "
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

Works for me.

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 11:57 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

How about:

All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided there are mechanisms in
WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items in the event of resistance
from ICANN management and Board.

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Bruce Tonkin
<Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> >
wrote:

Hello All,

>>  WS 1 is designated for accountability mechanisms that must be in place
of rimly committed to before IANA transition occurs. 
All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided there are mechanisms in
WS1 adequate for force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from
Icann management and Board. 

If possible I would like to see the last phrase read:  "in case of
resistance from ICANN Management and Board".   The current wording seems to
assume there is some sort of default resistance.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150106/0214be9e/attachment.html>