[CCWG-ACCT] Open ALAC Issues
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Jan 27 14:46:33 UTC 2016
Well even if we don't need it now. It will be good to recognise that it's
yet to be discussed. However considering that the UA is required once board
approves the proposal then it may be good to determine and conclude on this
That said, it may be good to be sure that those member representatives have
no power to act unilaterally. I would have thought using 1 stone to kill to
birds will be good i.e making the various chairs/leaders of SO/AC to serve
is such capacity. That gives some level of responsibility and security on
that various SO/AC can always boot out their leader whenever required.
On 27 Jan 2016 15:02, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
> I think people contuinue to go to the last milimiter of the road and
> generate a new discussion and debate about the number of représentatives in
> Unincorprated associattion représentatives and start a new round of
> bebates and dispute
> Do we need this information now pls ?
> 2016-01-27 6:14 GMT+01:00 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>:
>> As per my comment in the CCWG meeting earlier today, here is a list of
>> the issues still to be resolved from the ALAC statement on the 3rd Draft
>> There are three issues currently under discussion.
>> 1. ICANN Mission and ensuring that contract provisions will not be
>> invalidated or be unenforceable.
>> 2. The issue regarding market mechanisms.
>> 3. Human Rights (original issue resolved but pending final wording).
>> Issues to be addressed.
>> 1. The first is a relatively trivial one and easily addressed. Rec# 4, in
>> the section on replacing the Interim Board states:
>> "SOs, ACs, and the Nominating Committee will develop replacement
>> processes that ensure the Interim Board will not be in place for more than
>> 120 days."
>> The ALAC request that this be changed to:
>> "SOs, ACs, and the Nominating Committee will develop processes designed
>> to replace Interim Board members within 120 days."
>> By removing the word "ensure", this change, while not altering the
>> intent, goes along with the recent practice of not putting hard deadlines
>> in the Bylaws, deadlines that for one reason or another may not be met in a
>> particular instance.
>> 2. Rec# 10, AoC. The Recommendation suggests that as part of
>> organizational reviews, the AC/SO's accountability be included in the
>> review. The ALAC suggests that this be enshrined in Article IV, Section 4.1
>> of the ICANN Bylaws.
>> 3. On page 14, item 2 of the draft proposal (and on page 5 of Annex 1),
>> it says "The members of the unincorporated association would be
>> representatives of ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
>> that wish to participate." We have never discussed how such members are
>> identified. Presumably we should to specify that each participating AC/SO
>> must identify who it's representative will be.
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community