[CWG-Stewardship] Legal work for CCWG Accountability on Board Proposals versus CCWG Proposals

[Jonathan Robinson]

Thanks Seun,

 

Any other view on this?

 

Notwithstanding the views, a key point for me is that we ended up where we did, then put it to public comment, then put it to the chartering organisations.

 

Therefore, it seems to me that (assuming we wanted to) it would be challenging to unwind a requirement such as this one at this stage. At least in a timely way.

 

Jonathan

 

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] 
Sent: 24 September 2015 15:43
To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal work for CCWG Accountability on Board Proposals versus CCWG Proposals

 

Thanks Jonathan, reading through the CWG dependency I was really wondering whether it was appropriate for us to have required a veto on ICANN budget instead of that of the PTI/IANA because I think they are 2 different things.

Perhaps our choice of words like approval/veto is a concern as well.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

All,

 

You may find the attached to be useful background reading in relation to the CWGs consideration of its dependencies on the CCWG work.

 

Thank-you.

 

 

Jonathan


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150925/187c9272/attachment.html>