Kavouss et al: I don’t have time at this moment to answer your question in detail. But it does suggest a line of inquiry for this CCWG. Some participants have already suggested that the ICANN community have a clear means by which it can “spill” the Board or member thereof in certain situations. That speaks to a means for Board member removal. But what about Board member selection? Can changing that process create a more accountable Board with less likelihood of any need for removal? This question would seem to be very germane to our mission, and it would require a review of current Board selection procedures and consideration of possible alternatives. And that in turn leads to consideration of whether any alteration of Board selection processes – which would require Bylaws changes, and might take some time to fully implement – should be in WS1 or WS2. I think the answer to that and other work division questions must rest on whether WS1 includes a means – that is implemented in conjunction with the transition -- by which the community can readily implement Bylaws changes, even where such changes may be contrary to the will of the current Board. I hope participants find that suggestion worthwhile. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2015 4:47 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made Dear Phil, In your view, Which community and Under Which Legal representation and using Which criteria designate the Board Members ? Are you referring to Nomcom as représentatives of the entire Global Multistakeholder Community or in your view community has specific pattern consisting of specific group of people? Do you believe that the current designation fully respecting the notion of inclussiveness and full democracy? May you kindly clarify the situation. Regards Kavouss 2015-01-01 22:38 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Paul, The way you commenting on the matter could have two different interprétations or leave two different impressions: A) You are a firm supporter of accountabilty process when we note your comments about Mathieu B) You wish to raise the question Under discussion to the Board asking what they wish to see from CCWG and what they do not see from CCWG .The latter interpretation ,in my view, seems to be subordinating CCWG to the Board in the sense that we just study, elaborate and recoomend those area of accountability that Board is comfortable with but not CCWG address the full picture, objectives, requiremnets of accountability. Pls find a coherence between interpretation A) and interpretation B) .In order words if you are really in favour of addressing the accountability in a fullflege scope why you want to limit CCWG to just follow those areas of accountability that Board wishes? Thank you very much to clarify your position. Best Regards Kavouss 2015-01-01 21:35 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>: Bruce is a wonderful man. But we don’t need his opinion, we need a formal commitment from the Board. That’s why we need to ask the question in an official manner. Indeed, I would posit that if the accountability working group tasked with ensuring accountability by ICANN is reluctant to even ask the Board a question then the communities capacity to actually reign in Board excess when/if it perceives such would be very limited. If we are so unwilling to even ask a question, will we be willing to tell the Board “no.” In any event, if we choose not to ask this question, then the scope of WS1 has just expanded to essentially include almost all oversight mechanisms we might conceivably want – which would, I think, be the wrong result. Warm regards Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 10:09 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made Dear All I agree to the term that no one should dictate the CCWG. Still why there is a need that we raise any such question to the Board, Bruce is quite active and requested to continue the Liaison Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 1 Jan 2015, at 15:28, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Bruce, Thanks for this information, I will then suggest that this WG determine if those steps will indeed be appropriate for us especially since WS1 is more of a perquisite to transition. One would expect some adjustments on timing and wording rights to be made in the process, also board voting rights in this particular process may need to be agreed upon. It will not be encouraging to have implementation stopped on the basis of no 2/3 board majority....time utilization is an important factor in all these. So the earlier we involve board (without having them dictate for us) the better. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Jan 2015 04:55, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Hello Seun,
I think writing to board to know how it will treat the WG outcome especially when some of it's implementations will require by-law modifications that further involve the ICANN community in decision making process may be useful.
In terms of the process for making bylaws changes, changes have previously been made to accommodate recommendations from the review teams associated with the work of the Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT) https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atrt-2012-02-25-en . Any archive of all previous versions of the bylaws is available here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/archive-bc-2012-02-25-en Based on our current practice I would expect the process to be as follows: - Board accepts recommendations from the CCWG - General Counsel's office prepares specific text to change in the bylaws - proposed bylaws changes are put out for public comment (45 days) - Board then votes on the bylaws amendments - a 2/3 majority of the Board is required to make a bylaw change If there is significant community comments against the proposed bylaws language - then a new draft of the bylaws would be put out for public comment that is consistent with the recommendations from the CCWG. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8838 - Release Date: 12/30/14