Dear Colleagues,

With regards to the distinction member / participant, a friendly reminder that our group's policy is based on openness. I would like to encourage participants AND members to keep contributing to our work as much as their availability enables them to.

The relevant section of our Charter is as follows :

In addition, the CCWG-Accountability will be open to any interested person as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group not represented in the CCWG-Accountability, or may be self-appointed. Participants will be able to actively participate in and attend all CCWG-Accountability meetings, work groups and sub-work groups. However, should there be a need for a consensus call or decision, such consensus call or decision will be limited to CCWG-Accountability members appointed by the chartering organizations.

Best,
Mathieu

Le 06/07/2015 20:04, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :

Dear Co-Chairs,

I need to point out that neither of the two participants is a member of this CCWG.

el

--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jul 6, 2015, at 16:28, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

I do not share any of those "understandings" or "basic principles". Those may be the opinions of some, but they are by no means the understandings of the CCWG. I would reject these as basic principles.

Greg

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I have no problem with having a new proposal presented. However it is important that there some adherence to basic principles on proposals that the ccwg would not want to explore. Three areas comes to mind:

- Its my understanding that anything that will turn some/all of the SO/AC to members and thereby exposing them to legal challenge is not acceptable

- Its my understanding that anything that allows removal of individual board member without the approval of the entire(or larger part) of the community is not acceptable

- Its my understanding that a solution that allows direct community veto on certain elements like budget, strategic plan et all is not acceptable but an indirect enforcement could be considered (i.e using a power to get another power executed indirectly)

Some/none of the above may be acceptable by us, but my point is that there should be some focus going forward, especially if the target of ICANN54 is to be meet

Regards
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill@afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************