[CCWG-ACCT] Townhall meeting follow-up

Tue Jun 23 09:01:48 UTC 2015

Hi Roelof

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>
wrote:

>   Jordan, all,
>
>  The “empowered SOs/Acs model” allows for enforcement of 6/6 powers if it
> "escalates into" the membership model
>  We should also consider the alternative option: making the designator
> model the escalation path.
>  ICANN would then not have to prepare to move to a membership model.
> Escalation into designator model would allow enforcement of 4/6 powers.
> Removing the board of part thereof is among them. Vetoing the budget is not.
>
>  I would like to submit the following for consideration:
>  If the community, in line with the power given to it in ICANN’s (new)
> bylaws and the designed process, vetoes the budget and the board ignores
> that veto, what would be the best next step? Taking the board to court to
> have the budget vetoed and redone? Or removing (part of) the board?
> I would think the latter, as by ignoring the community’s veto of the
> budget (as the outcome of due process that the board agreed to in the first
> place), such a board completely loses the trust and confidence of the
> community and can no longer function.
>

+1 on this. However i think its important to clearly define sufficient
threshold of refused community (i don't prefer to call it veto) actions
that would warrant a "community rod" on the board. I won't expect the
community to initiate a removal process just because the board refuse to
take specific item from the budget as recommended by the community.

>
>  So I suggest that, under the “empowered SOs/ACs model”, the possibility
> to legally enforce ONLY the power to remove (part of) the board would
> suffice. Legal enforcement of one or more of the other powers would simply
> never be used, unless combined with removal of the board
>

I agree with this proposition, so long as the legal enforcement under the
"empowered SO/AC model" would not require any change in the current
structure of SOs/ACs. By legal enforcement, i hope you mean "ICANN board
members having refused to follow its bylaw is hereby *legally* required to
step down from the board" and NOT "ICANN board members having refused to
follow its bylaw is hereby required to step down from the board by the
*community
members*"

Regards

>
>  Best,
>
>  Roelof Meijer
>
>   From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Date: maandag 22 juni 2015 16:08
> To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Townhall meeting follow-up
>
>   Hi Seun, all:
>
>   On 22/06/2015, at 3:55 pm, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   Hello Kavouss,
>
>  While i agree that its good we get further clarity on the "Empowered
> SO/AC model", i think we have the overall high level characteristics of the
> model and it may be good to consider other-ways to "enforceability" other
> than formalising the SO/AC as well.
>
>
>  I think the advice we have received is that designator approach in the
> legal sense could allow for enforcement of 4/6 powers, membership approach
> 6/6, and voluntary approach 0/6. For designator or member you need some
> kind of “legal person”.
>
>  If there are other paths to enforceability I would be interested to know
> what they are - does anybody know of any?
>
>
> I for one like the empowered SO/AC model as its really an improvement to
> the full membership model and less complicated (seem to be an advanced
> designator model). Nevertheless there is still the reality that its a
> members model and there are cons associated with this and it may be good to
> put them side by side with the current "voluntary model" that operates an
> "Empowered bylaw" post-transition  (yeah empowered seem to be the buzz word
> lately ;-) )
>
>
>  This is a beast I have never heard of, an empowered bylaw :-)
>
>  J
>
>
>  Regards
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Dear All,
>> First of all ,let us wait for a clear way forward to be on the Table be
>> fore our next meeting on Wednesday
>> Secondly, if we clearly distinguish between rights to participate to
>> voting of any or all of the six/seven powers as well as  issues relying to
>> IRP FROM issue of empowerment ,requiring membership ( at least one member
>> to have a stand for enforce certain decisions /conclusion made through
>> voting ,many questions would be narrowed down to fewer numbers .
>> Pls kindly advise on that
>> Kavouss
>>
>>  2015-06-22 18:52 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
>>
>>>    Dear all,
>>>
>>>  First i like to thank the Co-Chairs for responding to all the questions
>>> during the townhall meeting. Milton mentioned 2 things and i like to use
>>> that to provide my feedback/suggestions:
>>>
>>>  - Purpose of the CCWG:
>>>
>>> IMO, i think the purpose of the CCWG is to recommend ways to improve
>>> ICANN accountability but enforceability could just be one of such features
>>> and not the ultimate goal.
>>>
>>>  - Enforceability solutions other than membership:
>>>  Considering the complications relating to the various membership
>>> models that has been suggested, there is obvious need to consider what is
>>> achievable within the current structure and i think everything is
>>> achievable except enforceability. Puting that in mind, i think the CCWG
>>> report in summary has provided the following (amongst others):
>>>
>>>  - They have looked into the current bylaw and proposed edits that
>>> would ensure community engagement in the board decision making process
>>> which is not existing at the moment
>>>  - They have proposed ways by which the suggested edits to the bylaw
>>> once implemented can be updated (fundamental bylaw)
>>>
>>>  I think these 2 items are critical accountability enhancement and once
>>> implemented would have provided ICANN board with some specific guideline on
>>> how to approach issues as accordingly.
>>>
>>>  So it seem to me that we will already have some enforceability without
>>> actually requiring membership since an organisation board is required to
>>> obey/comply with its bylaw. So if the bylaw says; before you can do xyz, it
>>> needs to go through abc process, why would the board not follow/obey those
>>> direction as defined in the bylaw?
>>>
>>>  As a follow-up to my question about ICANN board complying with its
>>> bylaw. I will like to ask the following questions:
>>>
>>>  - Has there been any known scenario where ICANN board at the moment
>>> did not obey its current bylaw?
>>>  - If ICANN board does not obey its bylaw, what its legal implication
>>> to the board members with regards to their mandate?
>>>  - Is it possible for board members to sign a mandate upon induction
>>> indicating that they would resign if the community (through a defined
>>> process) determined that they did not follow the organisation's bylaw?
>>>
>>>  Regards
>>> --
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web:
>>>   http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/> Mobile: +2348035233535
>>> **alt email:  <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>>>
>>>  The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web:
>   http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/> Mobile: +2348035233535
> **alt email:  <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
>  The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150623/6b46aa22/attachment.html>