Hi Anriette,
Those 2 roles of ICANN board is typically the roles of the board of any RIR
as well. In that a typical RIR board like ICANN board ratifies policies and
also is responsible for the organisation as a whole.
What perhaps could be different is a situation where the board writes
policies (which I understand have happened in the past in the case of
ICANN) in a manner not consistent with the PDP. While some RIR boards have
such provision (in case of emergency) in their bylaws, it has never used
such power hence it has always relied on their respective PDP.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 29 Feb 2016 7:39 a.m., "Anriette Esterhuysen" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear all
>
> This might not be the right time.. but the question that I have always
> had about the ICANN board is a structural one to do with what I feel is
> an inherent tension in the dual nature of its role.
>
> If my questions have already been answered by the board or previous
> board, please just point me to the right place.
>
> I would like to hear how the board feels about and manages what to me
> looks like two different, and potentially conflicting (in terms of
> interest) thrusts of accountability.
>
>
> The ICANN board has a dual oversight role - it is the governing body
> accountable for ensuring that ICANN policy decisions are sound, and
> consistent with ICANN policies and procedures. In this respect the ICANN
> board is responsible for making sure that ICANN plays its role as a
> public interest regulator of the DNS well. Their accountability is
> therefore to the huge community out there that use, maintain, sell,
> manage etc. domain names.
>
> It is also the governing body responsible for the ICANN not-for-profit
> corporation, making sure it has the financial resources needed to
> function, that it has a strong brand and a good reputation, that it
> complies with statutory obligations. Their accountability is therefore
> to ICANN the institution.
>
> So questions:
>
> Do they agree that there can be tension between these two thrusts of
> accountability? And even conflict?
>
> If no, why not?
>
> If yes, how do they manage it?
>
> And, don't they think that it would strengthen ICANN and the board to
> address this? They could for example, make use of board committees to
> delegate some of these functions? Or is that already happening?
>
> Anriette
>
> On 29/02/2016 08:21, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> > I agree, but if we want to simply put it on the record that we are not
> > amused, this is the time.
> > SP
> >
> > On 2016-02-29 0:59, James Gannon wrote:
> >> I agree we got a bad deal on that but its dead in the water for
> >> getting more people onto it, the rejection of the BC request was
> >> pretty absolute so they won’t backtrack on that or us either.
> >>
> >> -jg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29/02/2016, 3:38 a.m., "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Stephanie Perrin"
> >> <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
> >> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We are concerned about the limited number of folks on the Consumer
> >>> protection, competition and trust review that is going on at the
> >>> moment. Carlos is our only person on that, Malcolm was rejected. You
> >>> may recall the BC requested adding one of their members, in the name of
> >>> gender balance.
> >>> Stephanie
> >>>
> >>> On 2016-02-28 22:29, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> >>>> Tapani
> >>>> As a veteran of many of these sessions, I want us to avoid wasting
> >>>> time and just generating animosity.
> >>>> I would strongly encourage us to ask questions that:
> >>>> a) are forward-looking, and give us an opportunity to shape
> >>>> agendas and perceptions on things that are not already finished
> >>>> b) involve requests for things that the board or staff could
> >>>> actually deliver for us
> >>>>
> >>>> Any ideas about that?
> >>>>
> >>>> E.g., is there are request we can make regarding the RDS (Whois)
> >>>> process that would position us better?
> >>>> Are there any requests regarding the implementation process for the
> >>>> CCWG recommendations that will help us make sure things don't go off
> >>>> track? Are there any committees that we can ask to be on?
> >>>> Can we ask them about the impending GNSO review and whether they
> >>>> agreed with our assessment of the biased Westlake report? Things of
> >>>> that sort
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of
> >>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 6:10 AM
> >>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>>> Subject: Questions to the Board?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One regular event at ICANN meetings is that we get to meet the
> >>>>> Board, talk
> >>>>> with them about and ask them whatever we want.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Board would, however, like to know in advance what we're going
> >>>>> to ask
> >>>>> them, so they could better prepare for it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you have suggestions for topics for our meeting with the Board in
> >>>>> Marrakech, please let me know as soon as possible (feel free to
> >>>>> post to the list
> >>>>> or me directly, as you prefer).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> >
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Executive Director
> Association for Progressive Communications
> [log in to unmask]
> www.apc.org
> IM: ae_apc
>
|
