[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello David,

>>  (a) is empowered to act by stakeholder consensus,

The concept of community approval is still required to change bylaws etc., and the community can remove Board members or the Board.   The only push back really is in the area of how to make the budget approval process effective.


>>   (b) kept in check by an IRP process in which its actions can be challenged by anyone materially affected by the action (or by any of the SOs and ACs, acting on its own),

That is still in place.   Anyone legal person materially affected can still challenge.   The board has given detailed comments on the proposed changes to the IRP process and either agrees completely or agrees in principle with some suggestions for refinement.

The MEM process is in addition, not instead of the IRP.  The aim is to be able to tailor the process for a community (generally comprising multiple SOs and ACs)  to challenge board decisions.   The standing requirements may be different, as here may not need to demonstrate a threshold of material harm etc.


>>  It may not have been intended, but surely this task was precisely the one that the IRP was supposed to take on, and now it's being off-loaded to some arbitration system.  How does that "not replace" the IRP?

My understanding is that there is a difference between the current IRP (which is a review panel that reviews and recommends) and the proposed changes is that the new ruling will be binding (the board must comply with the ruling) - and thus the term binding arbitration.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150915/89666316/attachment.html>