Hi all I'm thinking about what the Avenue regarding Community looks like. This is to spur discussion and thinking.
From the tree diagram, the limb this seems focused on is "Approval of Key Decisions", with the three subcategories mentioned are changes of bylaws, acting outside bylaws, budgets & strategic plan. It seems to me that the limb "Remove board members" fits here too.
Should other limbs be within this work? (We may discuss this in the meeting, which is about to resume) The *purpose* of this Avenue/area of work seems to be something like this - first draft, just to get people thinking: "Accountability improvements through increasing the community's ability to be the ultimate authority within ICANN." The *focus* would be on ICANN as a whole and its general operations. In particular, none of this work should (in my opinion) be able to be used within the general ICANN policy development or approval processes - they're already well provided for, and the Review and Redress Avenue should improve that situation. The sorts of *powers* that have been mentioned are to do things like (these are just examples): * approve the Strategic Plan, Business/Operating Plan and Budget (or refer it back to the ICANN Board for further work) * approve proposed changes to the bylaws (or refer them back to the ICANN Board for further work) * establish that a particular action was outside the Bylaws and refer it back to the ICANN Board for reconsideration * establish community opposition to a Board or Staff decision and recommit it to the ICANN Board for reconsideration * invalidate a decision of the ICANN Board * remove a member of the ICANN Board or the entire ICANN Board It seems reasonable that this area should be focused on creating and defining powers that don't currently exist, or clearly flagging where it is discussing a power that does exist and why it needs to be considered here. In terms of mechanisms, some have been mentioned: creating membership or delegateship under California law; creating within the bylaws a CWG or similar with these "uber" powers. There are no doubt other options but this is where legal advise will be helpful. Look forward to your thoughts Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
Hello Jordan,
* establish that a particular action was outside the Bylaws and refer it back to the ICANN Board for reconsideration
- my sense of the discussion on this was that the idea was that the group would have standing to launch some form of independent panel process to decide whether an action was outside of the bylaws. i.e. the group doesn't make the decision about bylaws, it makes a decision to send a matter to an independent panel.
* invalidate a decision of the ICANN Board
As per above - I think any decision to invalidate a decision should be on the basis that the Board hasn't followed its bylaws - not just that a group doesn't like a decision. An independent review panel may have as one of its powers the ability to recommend or bind the Board to reverse a decision, after it has found that the Board's original decision was not consistent with its bylaws or articles of association. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Greetings All from Frankfurt airport. My apologies for having to leave early. My congratulations to our 3 chairs and all the staff involved for helping us to have a very productive and thought provoking two days. I look forward to seeing the outputs and to continuing to work in a spirit of creativity and cooperation towards achieving our goals. Cheers, Chris Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
On 21 Jan 2015, at 02:01, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Jordan,
* establish that a particular action was outside the Bylaws and refer it back to the ICANN Board for reconsideration
- my sense of the discussion on this was that the idea was that the group would have standing to launch some form of independent panel process to decide whether an action was outside of the bylaws. i.e. the group doesn't make the decision about bylaws, it makes a decision to send a matter to an independent panel.
* invalidate a decision of the ICANN Board
As per above - I think any decision to invalidate a decision should be on the basis that the Board hasn't followed its bylaws - not just that a group doesn't like a decision. An independent review panel may have as one of its powers the ability to recommend or bind the Board to reverse a decision, after it has found that the Board's original decision was not consistent with its bylaws or articles of association.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (3)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Chris Disspain -
Jordan Carter