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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

D

2015-01-27 10:32 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.na>:

> 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     ;____/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150127/7c93ec43/attachment.html>