[CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

Sat Jan 10 18:19:53 UTC 2015

Dear All,
I have serious difficulties with the following amendments proposed by Bruce
Quote
*"in case of resistance from ICANN Management and Board".   The current
wording seems to assume there is some sort of default resistance*."
Please kindly make sure that every body agree to the text . We thank Bruce
but we could not subordinate CCWG to Board 's wishes .
Regards
Kavouss

2015-01-10 17:53 GMT+01:00 Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>:

>  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 | www.sidn.nl
>
>
>
>   From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> Date: dinsdag 6 januari 2015 19:18
> To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>, Mathieu
> Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>, Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer at sidn.nl>,
> 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>, 'Greg Shatan' <
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> 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
> <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; 'Roelof Meijer'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Greg
> Shatan'
> *Cc:* 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
> <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
> <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
> *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 | www.sidn.nl
>
>
>
> *From: *Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> *Date: *dinsdag 6 januari 2015 15:02
> *To: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> 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
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 6 January 2015 11:57 PM
> *To:* Bruce Tonkin
> *Cc:* 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> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>
> 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
>
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
>
> *****************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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/20150110/ad2f76cd/attachment.html>