[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 and a way forward to include compromise text suggested by the Board

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Feb 8 14:53:33 UTC 2016

Let me resort to pragmatism. I know it may set a precedent, but I am 
willing to risk it.

1. We are already pretty much locking in what will be done in WS2 in 
Recommendation 12, including Human Rights.

2. As an AC Chair, I can definitively say that the workload 
associated with chartering, populating and finding chairs for a new 
CCWG is daunting, and not something we will approach frivolously.

3. Wearing my "I am not a lawyer" hat, but having spent a fair amount 
of time over the last several decades reading, writing and 
interpreting Bylaws, I cannot see having the ICANN Bylaws refer to a 
specific CCWG or a sub-part thereof. If they need to make a reference 
such as the one we are discussing, they should say the work will be 
carried out by an appropriately chartered, generally/widely 
supported, cross community working group.

Let's not devote more time and bandwidth to this and get on with 
substantive issues.


At 08/02/2016 04:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>Hello Tijani
> >>  - The Board seems to feel strongly that it would be advisable
>         I would like Why it would be advisable for Board
> From a bylaws perspective - we felt that the Chartering 
> organisations should have the option to split some of the work 
> stream 2 topics into separate CCWG's with perhaps different 
> membership that is most interested and/or skilled in the topic.
>As Alan and others have pointed out though - we still envisage that 
>each CCWG should have broad participation from multiple SOs and ACs 
>and basically have the same ability for open participation as the 
>CCWG on accountability.
>I could imagine that some participants of the CCWG on Accountability 
>would become members of a CCWG on human rights and attend every 
>meeting, and some members may become participants (and monitor the 
>mailing list and attend when available).
>The CCWG on Accountability still remains as an option to do all the 
>work in work stream 2 - it is up to the  chartering organisations to 
>consider  how best to manage the work.   All we are doing is 
>creating some flexibility.
>Bruce Tonkin
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list