[CCWG-ACCT] "Community" avenue of work

[Jordan Carter]

Hi all

I'm thinking about what the Avenue regarding Community looks like. This is
to spur discussion and thinking.

>From the tree diagram, the limb this seems focused on is "Approval of Key
Decisions", with the three subcategories mentioned are changes of bylaws,
acting outside bylaws, budgets & strategic plan. It seems to me that the
limb "Remove board members" fits here too.

Should other limbs be within this work? (We may discuss this in the
meeting, which is about to resume)

The *purpose* of this Avenue/area of work seems to be something like this -
first draft, just to get people thinking:

"Accountability improvements through increasing the community's ability to
be the ultimate authority within ICANN."

The *focus* would be on ICANN as a whole and its general operations.

In particular, none of this work should (in my opinion) be able to be used
within the general ICANN policy development or approval processes - they're
already well provided for, and the Review and Redress Avenue should improve
that situation.

The sorts of *powers* that have been mentioned are to do things like (these
are just examples):

* approve the Strategic Plan, Business/Operating Plan and Budget (or refer
it back to the ICANN Board for further work)
* approve proposed changes to the bylaws (or refer them back to the ICANN
Board for further work)
* establish that a particular action was outside the Bylaws and refer it
back to the ICANN Board for reconsideration
* establish community opposition to a Board or Staff decision and recommit
it to the ICANN Board for reconsideration
* invalidate a decision of the ICANN Board
* remove a member of the ICANN Board or the entire ICANN Board

It seems reasonable that this area should be focused on creating and
defining powers that don't currently exist, or clearly flagging where it is
discussing a power that does exist and why it needs to be considered here.

In terms of mechanisms, some have been mentioned: creating membership or
delegateship under California law; creating within the bylaws a CWG or
similar with these "uber" powers. There are no doubt other options but this
is where legal advise will be helpful.

Look forward to your thoughts

Jordan


-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

*To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150120/0062c58e/attachment.html>