Agreed.

And importantly, even if the ICANN Board is reluctant to adopt them, NTIA could require them to do so in response to a consensus community recommendation.

Keith

+1 … this is exactly right Mathieu.   The Board can, if it wishes, adopt these commitments.

Paul

Hi Roelof, All,

I may be missing something but would kindly challenge your statement that the Board would not submit to such a proposal (force implementation of items they resist to). Please note that I provide the examples below only as illustrations and not as candidate mechanisms for our group.

First of all, it is routine governance in many organisations, including private corporations or not for profits (such as Afnic which I know well), that Boards operate under the authority of general assemblies, and therefore have to submit to decisions from another body. It is even often considered good practice (for some, but not all, decisions at least, such as bylaw changes or Board appointments).

Secondly, many corporate Boards willingly commit to governance codes of conduct all over the world that limit their authorities. One of the latest examples being the "say on pay" trend amongst listed companies whereby Board submit resolutions regarding executive compensation for approval to the general assemblies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say_on_pay). So in order to comply with stakeholder expectations, it is an established practice that Boards do limit their own "powers".

But once again, I may have misunderstood your point.

Best
Mathieu
  

>mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items in the event of resistance from ICANN management and Board

 

How can we reasonably expect the (ICANN) board to commit to such a proposal (to force implementation of items that they do not agree to)? It would do so blindly, not knowing beforehand what those items would be. No sensible board would ever agree to this. And should not, as we as a working group are not all-knowing. And we know that the chances that the public comments on our proposals will show full consensus are nil. And even if there was a full consensus in the public comments, we know for sure that this does not equal public consensus.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Roelof Meijer

 

SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS
T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 
roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl

 

From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
Date: dinsdag 6 januari 2015 15:02
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

 

Works for me.

 

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 11:57 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

 

How about:

All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items in the event of resistance from ICANN management and Board.

Greg Shatan

 

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

Hello All,


>>  WS 1 is designated for accountability mechanisms that must be in place of rimly committed to before IANA transition occurs. 
All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate for force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from Icann management and Board. 

If possible I would like to see the last phrase read:  "in case of resistance from ICANN Management and Board".   The current wording seems to assume there is some sort of default resistance.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

 

_______________________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 

*****************************

Mathieu WEILL

AFNIC - directeur général

Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06

mathieu.weill@afnic.fr

Twitter : @mathieuweill

*****************************