Hello

I was not present for the Legal Sub Team call https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891852 on 10th March and have not listened to the recording either. This comment is based on the Introductory section of the Meeting Notes, which might not be points discussed at length during the Sub Team meeting, quoted below, and raised here as a point to consider by the whole group:

Notes: 2. Brief Discussion:
WS2 - no need to be in place before transition takes place but needs to take place post transition.

Three items need to be put in place as part of WS1.
Recalling members of the ICANN board of directors.
Community empowerment over ICANN’s management.
Limiting the scope of ICANN’s activity.

One of the several proposals for Work Stream 2 was based on the rationale that pre-transition changes to the Accountability framework is minimal with major improvements to discussed and carried out on an ongoing basis post transition.

With almost zero discussion on Work Stream 2, without even the formation of work stream 2, it is highly undesirable to think of such changes to the Accountability framework as the inclusion of provisions to recall members of the Board, limiting the scope of ICANN's activity or even Community empowerment over ICANN management.

Within a well-considered and larger Accountability environment such changes could be effected in phases, in tune with a larger and clearer blue print, but without even a beginning on such a blue print, it is unwise to think of the changes as proposed for WS1. These provisions, if included pre-transition and in a rush, could prove counter productive.

I would propose the bare minimal improvements to the Accountability framework, if such improvements are to be made in a rush. At best, WS 1 could discuss such changes but leave it for implementation post transition, after more elaborate thinking.

Sivasubramanian M