Hi James,

You're not the first to advance the Runaway Board (or Recalcitrant Board) thesis. See the BC's "Stress Tests" and some contributions by our WG4 colleagues. I'm not sure if the intentional acts of the incumbent contractor completely define our problem, for instance, see my note earlier today on compromise or loss of some resource critical to some existing (or hypothetical) accounting process -- e.g., crypto keys or authentication credentials for documents and/or employees.

Regards,
Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon

On 12/18/14 5:41 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:

Hello WG4 team:

I recognize that there have been several attempts to catalog the various scenarios and situations that would benefit from improved accountability mechanisms. But as a conversation starter, I would propose that there are really only two contingencies:

* The ICANN Board takes action that is opposed by a significant majority (or unanimously) of stakeholders (SO/AC), or

* The ICANN Board refuses to take action despite significant support (or unanimity) of stakeholders (SO/AC).

It’s my opinion that addressing these two over-arching contingencies will naturally sweep up nearly all other scenarios.

Thoughts?

Thanks—

J.

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 at 19:00
To: ccwg-accountability4 <ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>
Subject: [Area 4] Comments from Mr. Kavouss Arasteh (GAC, ICG)

Dear all,

Here attached is Mr. Arasteh's first contribution to the work of the CCWG-Accountability as he shared on the main mailing list on 15 December. Below I've copied an excerpt of his document that relates to WA4.

2.4 Working Group 4

This scope of work of this Group is to identify contingencies (especially in relation with WS1)

The above-mentioned scope is quite vague and ambiguous

Best,

Grace
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list
Ccwg-accountability4@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4