[CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

Sat Jan 10 16:53:36 UTC 2015

Exactly. And especially as a preconditions for the transition of the IANA oversight (that oversight can than (partly or wholly) be transitioned to that structure.

Sorry for the confusion I caused, see my email sent just before this one

Best regards,

Roelof A. Meijer
CEO

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> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl/>

From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
Date: dinsdag 6 januari 2015 19:18
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>, Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer at sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl>>, 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>, '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

Agreed.

And importantly, even if the ICANN Board is reluctant to adopt them, NTIA could require them to do so in response to a consensus community recommendation.

Keith

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 1:09 PM
To: Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>; 'Roelof Meijer'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Greg Shatan'
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

+1 … this is exactly right Mathieu.   The Board can, if it wishes, adopt these commitments.

Paul

**NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>

From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 12:14 PM
To: Roelof Meijer; Bruce Tonkin; Greg Shatan
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

Hi Roelof, All,

I may be missing something but would kindly challenge your statement that the Board would not submit to such a proposal (force implementation of items they resist to). Please note that I provide the examples below only as illustrations and not as candidate mechanisms for our group.

First of all, it is routine governance in many organisations, including private corporations or not for profits (such as Afnic which I know well), that Boards operate under the authority of general assemblies, and therefore have to submit to decisions from another body. It is even often considered good practice (for some, but not all, decisions at least, such as bylaw changes or Board appointments).

Secondly, many corporate Boards willingly commit to governance codes of conduct all over the world that limit their authorities. One of the latest examples being the "say on pay" trend amongst listed companies whereby Board submit resolutions regarding executive compensation for approval to the general assemblies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say_on_pay). So in order to comply with stakeholder expectations, it is an established practice that Boards do limit their own "powers".

But once again, I may have misunderstood your point.

Best
Mathieu

Le 06/01/2015 16:17, Roelof Meijer a écrit :
>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> | www.sidn.nl<http://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

_______________________________________________

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

--

*****************************

Mathieu WEILL

AFNIC - directeur général

Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06

mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>

Twitter : @mathieuweill

*****************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150110/905aea29/attachment.html>