Dear. All

I have no problem to write a Note to the Board asking procedure which will be used  in case some items arising from CCWG requiring change in Bylaws even though Bruce had indicated the procedure in his recent message.

What I disagree is to write to the Board and asking what changed they accept from CCWG.

This is not appropriate.  CCWG is established. It will send its outcome or conclusions which resulted from discussions ,debates, meetings and thus our works should  continue freely, openly, in a democratic and transparent manner without any prerequisite conditions.

Those who believe that CCWG requires prerequisite permission from Board what to be studied and what should not be studied need to review their position and allow us to work without any pre conditions  and instruction from the Board

Kavouss

 

Sent from my iPhone

On 1 Jan 2015, at 00:44, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Paul,

I think writing to board to know how it will treat the WG outcome especially when some of it's implementations will require by-law modifications that further involve the ICANN community in decision making process may be useful.
Secondly, there are common items of interest between CCWG and CWG so I think we may learn some hint from board's recent participation in the CWG

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 30 Dec 2014 23:40, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

All

 

As a follow up to our discussion on today’s call and in reference to my point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following lines:

 

The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the prospective governance of ICANN.   Many members and participants in the CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG’s recommendations  is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority.  Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on the following question:

 

“Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained?

 

If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself.  If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be commensurately broadened.”

 

I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we use.  My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or substantially broadened) our field of consideration.

 

Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates information – if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if it answers in the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the community in seeking a broader accountability package.  By contrast, if the Board answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler – we need to reach consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add only the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary.

 

So … my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at the earliest practicable opportunity.

 

I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year.

 

Warm regards

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: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Cc: Brenda Brewer
Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC

 

Dear all, 

 

Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list. 

 

Proposed Agenda:

1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest

2. Membership Updates 

3. Work Area Updates

WA1 – David Maher / Samantha Eisner

WA2 – Steve DelBianco

WA3 – Avri Doria

WA4 – Eric Brunner-Williams

4. Coordination between CWG and ICG

5. Expectations for the F2F

6. AOB

7. Closing Remarks

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

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