D 2015-01-27 10:32 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
I fail to see comments on the "line item" issue of stakeholders.
Neither the GNSO, GAC, ALAC etc will have powers over ccNSO (policy) and/or individual ccTLDs. Nor something as vague as a "Community".
Unless this is addressed I doubt this would fly.
Or rather I know it will not.
And, I would most certainly use one of my membership objections.
Not negotiable.
el
On 2015-01-27 10:54, Fiona Asonga wrote:
Robin,
Your proposal make so much sense and will give the community an appropriate level of engagement and oversight without creating additional structures.
Fiona Asonga
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From: *"Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org> *To: *"David Post" <david.g.post@gmail.com>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Sent: *Thursday, January 22, 2015 3:48:03 AM *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] proposal for how community could be delegated to make some decisions
To flesh this proposal out a bit further: The "Community" could overturn a board decision on a limited number of key issues via an ombudsman mediated process in which a decision could be rendered via the "Community". Each individual component of the Community (for example, GAC, GNSO, AT-Large, CCNSO, etc.) would have a proportional weight in the over-all decision of the Community. Currently, each of these individual components already has internal mechanisms in place to make decisions (take policy positions, elections, etc.) through which the decision of the Community is actually rendered. This way, we don't need to create a new super-structure to be "Representational". We can do away with that additional layer entirely - creating the "super board" because decisions can be made in the individual component's internal mechanisms. This would be a much more bottom-up method of reaching a "Decision of the Community" regarding a particular board decision. The ombudsman could act as the facilitator of this process: put the issue to vote, collect and tally the votes of the individual components to render the "Decision of the Community". The board would then be required to adopt this Decision of the Community unless it voted (unanimous or super-majority) to not adopt the Decision of the Community, which could be stipulated to in bylaws. The board would retain ultimate decisional authority as required by Cal Corp law, but it would be very difficult for it to ignore the bottom-up Decision of the Community. Coupled with a mechanism to recall recalcitrant board members, this overall model could solve many of our problems and remake ICANN in a more bottom-up fashion without too much structural redesign. Thoughts?
Thanks, Robin [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community