As the CCWG wield power to this "yet to be formed group", i do hope that adequate mechanism that ensures there won't be need to exercise such powers will be put in place. Generally i would hope that the group's power would only be seen/exercised as a nuclear option and the group itself will in NO way make decision without the community, otherwise we will be creating yet another monster that will require a CCWG like committee in near future! Cheers! On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Keith:
In addition to the new group powers including “approval of any future changes to ICANN bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, etc.”, would it also have any ability to propose changes to Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, etc., along with a process for consideration and approval of them? I think that is necessary to ensure that WS2 proposals get due consideration.
Thanks and best regards,
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 *Drazek, Keith *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:16 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Requirements for WS1
All, here are a few key points for inclusion in the list of the necessary Work Stream 1 reforms. I believe if we secure these into WS1, the WS2 issues can be addressed later with confidence.
1. Bylaw amendments incorporating AoC accountability and transparency obligations.
2. A new membership structure grounded in the community to ensure the Board is accountable to something or someone other than itself.
The group would have substantial but narrow powers, including
(a) annual budget approval/disapproval
(b) spilling the board
(c) review of board decisions
(d) referral of Board decisions to an independent redress mechanism,
(e) approval of any future changes to ICANN bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, etc.
3. A reformed Independent Review Process (IRP) including addition of a new light-weight process. Key components: Independent (from the Board) internal review, independent redress and binding decisions. Possible external judiciary for dispute resolution after all internal community processes have failed.
Keith “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4260/8932 - Release Date: 01/14/15
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !