Avri: I expect there could be general standards and guidelines, with the SOACs given considerable leeway as long as they meet those benchmarks. I believe this is currently the case with SG and C charters in the GNSO. Greg On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
How does the bottom-up imperative for SO/AC figure into the drive for standardization? Each of the SOC/AC is diffeent according to its own bottom-up priorities, why wouldn't their legal persona also be self directed?
And if the legal persona can be constrained, is this done as an ICANN Board issue or a Members issue.
avri
On 29-Apr-15 21:06, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all,
On 30 April 2015 at 12:44, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
León,
Thanks!
I appreciate that each SO/AC could set its own controls over its ‘alter ego’ and so the question would be more how will any control mechanisms be enforced.
However, I imagine that it may also be important to each SO/AC to ensure that their fellow SOs and ACs have robust control mechanisms in place.
I strongly agree with this. I think there should be common requirements across the SOs/ACs so we don't end up with a hodge podge or low standards for exercising some of these powers.
What do others think?
J
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community