[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding members

[Alan Greenberg]

Thanks Bruce.

I suggested this about a week ago, and asked whether there we re any 
legal impediments for doing this, and why the (in my mind) far more 
convoluted) UA solution was proposed in its stead. I hope that we can 
get advice from our legal team on this.

Alan

At 23/05/2015 04:41 AM, Bruce Tonkin 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