If we cannot have the Board commit to a mechanism by which the community can control the Board in the event it chooses not to follow community advice how can we give the Board the ultimate authority that the transition will be giving it? Contrary to your point, many Board allow outside auditors/controllers – at least they do in corporations that I’m familiar with. Many other Boards also acknowledge subservience to shareholders (the equivalent here of the community). Indeed, the much rarer circumstance is one where a Board asserts unreviewable authority …..

Paul

**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***

509 C St. NE

Washington, DC 20002

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key

From: Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 10:18 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin; Greg Shatan
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

>mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items in the event of resistance from ICANN management and Board

How can we reasonably expect the (ICANN) board to commit to such a proposal (to force implementation of items that they do not agree to)? It would do so blindly, not knowing beforehand what those items would be. No sensible board would ever agree to this. And should not, as we as a working group are not all-knowing. And we know that the chances that the public comments on our proposals will show full consensus are nil. And even if there was a full consensus in the public comments, we know for sure that this does not equal public consensus.

Cheers,

Roelof Meijer

From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
Date: dinsdag 6 januari 2015 15:02
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

Works for me.

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 11:57 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

How about:

All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items in the event of resistance from ICANN management and Board.

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

Hello All,

>> WS 1 is designated for accountability mechanisms that must be in place of rimly committed to before IANA transition occurs.
All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate for force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from Icann management and Board.

If possible I would like to see the last phrase read: "in case of resistance from ICANN Management and Board". The current wording seems to assume there is some sort of default resistance.

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