[CWG-Stewardship] Do we really need a Contracting Co.?

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> On 02-Dec-14 07:16, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> I also don't understand the view that ICANN community and corporate are
> separate.
>
>
> The ICANN Board and Staff are independent of the Community and can
> overrule the community either by a vote of the Board, or by calling an
> action 'implementation' that does not require community agreement.
>

Okay, may i ask if this is happening at the moment and what the NTIA role
has been in making sure it does not happen? because what we are trying to
transition is the NTIA role and not ICANN management itself....if there is
something that needs to be fixed in the ICANN structure then it could be
put in the requirement for transition (most of which should be looked into
by the accountability cwg).


> especially since the Board, given its understanding of the its fiduciary
> responsibility sees itself as NOT representing the community. Adn the staff
> is governed by a CEO that is not subject, in any way, to community
> appproval in hiring or contract renewal.  The Community has NO influence
> over ICANN Staff.
>

Well in the RIR world the board (by by-law) acts in the interest of the
organisation. They may also choose not to listen to the community but they
usually wisely choose otherwise.... ;).

>
> What does that mean? and how is ICANN community different from a typical
> RIR community.
>
>  In the RIRs there is no body with a vote that can overrule the will of
> the community in policy making.
>

The RIR board by the by-law could decide not to approve a policy proposal,
its just that they have not had any reason to exercise such powers. So if
you are saying there has been consistence instances where a policy that
achieved consensus in the ICANN community was overruled by the board, then
there is definitely something wrong and will be good to have an example of
such scenario to understand why they took such action and determine how to
avoid such in future. This is how we build the organisation from inside
especially if we understand that ICANN is the home for gTLD

>
> Please when you think of who pays, think of it from the customer
> perspective, think of participation, think of the resources that's already
> been expended in this current ICG process.
>
>
> How does the contractor paying hurt the consumers?
>

I think it will be safer to answer this with another question, where will
the contractor get the money to pay from?


>
> I persist in seeing the only real possibility of capture in a massively
> multistakeholder body is that the community process can be captured by
> ICANN corporate decisions made that disregard the community's consensus,
> and that is what we need to protect against.
>

Looks like you are now referring the MRT to be a MASSIVE multi-stakeholder
body, please can we fashion out the composition and charter of this
organisation so we appreciate what we are looking at. It sure seem there is
going to be a lot of mechanism required to ensure that the multistakeholder
body is indeed inclusive.

Regards

>
> avri
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141202/3214da42/attachment.html>