For the WP3 record, following my intervention in the WP3 session here in Paris. Also I added a third topic: Bruce's suggestion that there be some form of 'Independent Objector' style person empowered to bring an IRP challenge on the grounds of incompatibility with the Bylaws. I'm not endorsing these as fully developed ideas, but they are productive lines of enquiry with real potential to be come very welcome improvements following the development that comes from consideration and discussion. Malcolm Begin forwarded message:
From: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> Date: 17 July 2015 09:11:22 CEST To: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability
Dear Chairs,
On 17 Jul 2015, at 00:40, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
I would argue it is the ability for the existing community to hold hearings in which they are able to compel information and witness testimony.
Will this idea be considered, or is it deemed too late? When would be an appropriate moment on the agenda to raise it for consideration?
If we are still open to considering emerging issues, I would also ask that we add Larry Strickling's suggestion that we add text to the Bylaws saying that the only role of the Board in approving a decision is to certify that a community consensus has been reached. (I'm not clear whether Mr Strickling was referring only to the development of gTLD policy or decisions more broadly, but that can be examined if the suggestion is considered).
Malcolm _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community