[CCWG-ACCT] proposal for how community could be delegated to make some decisions

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

I fail to see comments on the "line item" issue of stakeholders.

Neither the GNSO, GAC, ALAC etc will have powers over ccNSO (policy)
and/or individual ccTLDs. Nor something as vague as a "Community".


Unless this is addressed I doubt this would fly.

Or rather I know it will not.

And, I would most certainly use one of my membership objections.

Not negotiable.

el

On 2015-01-27 10:54, Fiona Asonga wrote:
> Robin,
> 
> Your proposal make so much sense and will give the community an
> appropriate level of engagement and oversight without creating
> additional structures.
> 
> Fiona Asonga
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
> *To: *"David Post" <david.g.post at gmail.com>,
> "accountability-cross-community at icann.org Community"
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 22, 2015 3:48:03 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] proposal for how community could be delegated
> to        make some decisions
> 
> To flesh this proposal out a bit further: The "Community" could
> overturn a board decision on a limited number of key issues via an
> ombudsman mediated process in which a decision could be rendered
> via the "Community".  Each individual component of the Community
> (for example, GAC, GNSO, AT-Large, CCNSO, etc.)  would have a
> proportional weight in the over-all decision of the Community.
> Currently, each of these individual components already has
> internal mechanisms in place to make decisions (take policy
> positions, elections, etc.)  through which the decision of the
> Community is actually rendered.  This way, we don't need to create
> a new super-structure to be "Representational".  We can do away
> with that additional layer entirely - creating the "super board"
> because decisions can be made in the individual component's
> internal mechanisms.  This would be a much more bottom-up method
> of reaching a "Decision of the Community" regarding a particular
> board decision.  The ombudsman could act as the facilitator of
> this process: put the issue to vote, collect and tally the votes
> of the individual components to render the "Decision of the
> Community".  The board would then be required to adopt this
> Decision of the Community unless it voted (unanimous or
> super-majority) to not adopt the Decision of the Community, which
> could be stipulated to in bylaws.  The board would retain ultimate
> decisional authority as required by Cal Corp law, but it would be
> very difficult for it to ignore the bottom-up Decision of the
> Community.  Coupled with a mechanism to recall recalcitrant board
> members, this overall model could solve many of our problems and
> remake ICANN in a more bottom-up fashion without too much
> structural redesign.  Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
[...]

-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/