[CWG-Stewardship] Agenda item 5 - Alternate proposals

[Alan Greenberg]

I note that item 5 on the agenda for the 18 
December meeting is "Due consideration of 
alternative proposal (not to exclude other proposals)".

I also note that there has been significant 
discussion about the CWG Stewardship and the CCWG 
Accountability, their inter-relationship and co-dependency.

In light of this, I would like to bring the CWGs 
attention to a recent e-mail on the CCWG list (copied below).

Although I believe that the ALAC proposal 
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/msg00011.html) 
is the only such alternative presented here, it 
is not alone. I am not advocating the exact 
details of the proposal referenced in the message 
(see 
http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/ 
and 
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-plan-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability), 
but it does demonstrate that we are not unique in 
wanting a far simpler mode for the new IANA 
coupled with real multistakeholder accountability in ICANN.

I believe that the CCWG *WILL* deliver and I 
think that we need to factor that into our 
deliberations. Specifically, is there really a 
need for the complexity, cost and associated 
issues of Contract Co. given the same level of 
control could be provided by a change such as this?

Alan

===================
>From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
>To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:20:43 +0000
>Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Op-Ed from ITIF 
>regarding permanent cross-community group as ultimate authority
>
>
>This pertains to our discussion yesterday about 
>a permanent, cross-community "˜Membership" group 
>to hold ICANN board and management accountable 
>to the community.  It was described this way in 
><https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accountability%20suggestions%20%5Bdraft%203%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1418610739000&api=v2>draft3 
>for work area 2:
>
>Amend ICANN bylaws to recognize a permanent 
>cross-community representative structure (all 
>ACs, SOs, Constituencies) with authority to:
>
>Appoint members of Affirmation review teams
>Review a board decision, or resolve a dispute 
>(option to use independent panel)
>Approve changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles, with 2/3 approval
>Approve annual proposed ICANN budget
>Recall one or all ICANN Board members
>
>One of the groups 
><http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/>proposing 
>a community of stakeholders as ultimate 
>authority posted a relevant 
><http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-plan-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability>Op-Ed 
>in a Washington paper today.  Daniel Castro of 
>the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) wrote:
>
>California state law applies since ICANN is a 
>registered nonprofit corporation in the state. 
>As such, California law allows nonprofit 
>organizations to have statutory members. 
>Gunnarson suggests that one way to provide an 
>effective check on the ICANN board's power is to 
>create statutory members of ICANN with extensive 
>authority over the board. This authority could 
>include removing board members, overturning 
>board decisions, etc. The statutory members 
>would likely include the chairs of the various 
>ICANN "supporting organizations" and "advisory 
>committees," such as the Address Supporting 
>Organization (ASO) responsible for IP address 
>policy and the Country Code Name Supporting 
>Organization (ccNSO) responsible for managing 
>the country code top-level domains. To ensure 
>that the statutory members do not hold too much 
>sway, their actions could be limited to 
>situations where there is a supermajority (i.e., consensus).
>
>We welcome further elaboration of legal basis to 
>enable this modification to ICANN’s bylaws in 
>conformance with California law.
>
>Steve DelBianco
>Executive Director
>NetChoice
>
><http://www.netchoice.org/>http://www.NetChoice.org 
>and <http://blog.netchoice.org/>http://blog.netchoice.org
+1.202.420.7482

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141217/7a9cb065/attachment-0001.html>