Dear Jor dan

Thank you for reply

First

regarding Quorum, I was not referring to ICA but to other Voting instances in which the voting threshold is mentioned but Quorum did not

Pls read my message again.

Second

Regarding ICA.

In a) below it is mentioned

Quote

": The ICA is advisory and discussion based – it has no decision-making rights other than to select a Chair among its members, and to agree matters related to its own operation as a group."

Unquote

However, no mention is made of the basis on which the advice is formulated ( Unanimity, Consensus( AND NOT ROIUGH OR SOFT ONE as used by IETF which I am uncomfortable with since many yeas as HUM for me is an imitation by others to the noise made by few and does in no way provide any views ) , Super Majority or Simple Majority?

Third

About IANA Budget

Let me make it clear that I did not understand the alternative option preferred by Martin for IANA Budget as a separate Budget .

What I do not recommend is to tie the INANA Budget with ICANN General Budget.

Regards

Kavouss

2015-07-26 4:53 GMT+02:00 Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>:

Thank you Keith, Alan for these comments. I've attached some comments back on them. All very helpful.

I'm sorry for the confusion around the Public Accountability Forum idea. What I was trying to suggest was that that suggestion be incorporated in the ICA so two "things" aren't being created.

From memory, the notion of the Public Accountability Forum was to bring together board, staff and the SO/ACs in a public exchange of views and questions and comments about accountability issues - a sort of open round table, done at an ICANN meeting once a year. The point was to help build mutual accountability across the ICANN system, not just vertical accountability - helping to solve the "who watches the watchers" conundrum.

This could easily be done under the umbrella of the ICANN Community Assembly, perhaps with supplementary attendance or speaking rights e.g. for more of the Board, maybe the SO/AC leadership as well.

But creating it as a separate beast seems pointless....

cheers
Jordan

On 26 July 2015 at 06:54, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

And a bunch of comments from me.

Alan

At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:

Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. Iâ€™ve made a few proposed red-lined edits in the attached, supported by comments. Happy to discuss further.

Regards,
Keith

From: wp1-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM
To: wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Hi all

I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.

Please see attached and debate away! I've tried to be clear on its solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the forum to use for the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago.

best,
Jordan

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