I like this starting point. el On 2015-10-13 19:57 , Erika Mann wrote: [...]
On 13 Oct 2015, at 19:38, Ray Plzak <plzakr@gmail.com <mailto:plzakr@gmail.com>> wrote:
George,
Regarding your assertion “CANN does have responsibility for more than just being a secretariat for the ACs and the SOs…”. I agree and think that it should be taken one further. ICANN should not be the secretariat for any SO or AC. There should be a distinct secretariat for the GNSO; which should also have its own executive board. It is in this particular area where most of the accountability issues have arisen. The ASO does not receive any secretariat services from ICANN, it takes care of its own. The ccNSO should also have its own secretariat and executive board. As for the ACs there should be a separate secretariat that provides support for all of them except the GAC which has its own secretariat. This singular secretariat for the ACs should have some sort of executive board composed of members selected by the ACs that use the service. This separation of secretariat function would then allow ICANN and its board to focus on areas of general concern for all of the SOs and ACs such as the global public interest. I realize these suggestions would require structural changes both in the corporate organization and in the affected SOs and ACs. Of course there would have to be a discussion of revenue generation and distribution. This separation would enhance accountability as it would move decisions that are currently made by the ICANN board and staff to a point closer to SO and AC scrutiny and control.
Just food for thought,
Ray [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/