[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding members

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Bruce
Thanks.
Before making any further comment, pls clarify what do you mean by " indemnity" in what sense , for what purpose and why?
While I agree to simplify the ,  I have other comment  to offer 
Regards
Kavouss 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 23 May 2015, at 10:41, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> I have been reading the various discussions on the topic of using members as a way of holding ICANN accountable.
> 
> Speaking personally - I think the concept of members can work.
> 
> My advice though would be to try to keep it simple.   The idea of creating separate  unincorporated versions of the GAC, ccNSO etc - just adds complexity that makes it more and more difficult for outsiders to really understand how ICANN works.   It already takes years to understand how the GNSO or ALAC processes work.
> 
> From my personal perspective - we should just allow the SOs and ACs to appoint their chairs/vice-chairs or nominated representatives as "members" of ICANN for a term that matches the term of their office.   This seems to require minimal change in ICANN's existing structure.
> 
> Each individual that is selected to become a member of ICANN could then sign an agreement with ICANN that ensures that ICANN provides some indemnity for the member, provided that the member operates in accordance with the direction of their SO and AC through a properly constituted motion according to the procedures of that group.   Ie the member would have a very narrow role to basically convey the decision of the respective SO and AC.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community