[CCWG-ACCT] RV: A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

On 01-Oct-15 09:49, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Pls be so kind and think of a scenario that only two or three out of 7
> SOs and ACs vote then the rest not voting will be captured by those
> two or three that voting .

I floated an idea on the WP1 the other day, that I was just discussing
on a phone call with the At Large group working on this stuff,  and was
asked to repeat on the full list.

> On the Community mechanism I do think we need to rename it to bring out
> the fact that it is only a power when there is broad
> agreement/consensus-by-some-definiton of the entire ACSO. We also need
> to explain that.  I wonder whether we need to move away from even having
> a voting concept to having a discussion and black ball concept. i.e. if
> two ACSO come out against, back to the drawing board. But if the CM,
> conceived of as a full ACSO cross community WG, comes out with a
> statement that is considered by all the ACSO without 2 objections, it
> can go forward. So 2 ACSO can trigger the mechanism, and 2 ACSO can
> freeze an action after full discussion and negotiation.  Or something
> similar.

Note since then I have been asked about the desire of some AC to only
advise not vote.
In this model advice-against can be just as much a black ball as a
recommendation-against.

Another thought that since came up was the idea that the two ACSO should
be at least 1 SO and 1 AC.

> I thought about the idea of adding the Board to the mix so it becomes
> ACSO+Board and do not see why it would not be workable as long as they
> participated in the mechanism on an equal footing and not as overlords
> with their own special veto.

This referred to an idea that Jordan floated on one of these lists.

One complication that came up with this idea was how it would affect the
blackball notion mentioned above.  Does this mean that the Board  + 1
ACSO is enough to freeze? I do not have an answer for that yet as I have
not analyzed the decision matrix to see how it would work out in
different circumstances - e.g. is it a Board proposal or a Community
proposal that is being discussed.

I have also been told that I am  dreaming if I think that the Board
would be willing to participate in a process on an equal footing with
the ACSO - but I think it is a possibility worth considering for those
decisions where the Board and the Community need to concur. The new
concept in our proposal is that sometimes, we need a formal way to find
concurrence between what the Community needs and what the Board thinks
its fiduciary responsibility is.  There is also my desire to have
mechanisms that help us avoid crisis, boardicide and court, if at all
possible. It is a way in which to tweak our multistakeholder model to
take into account the roles and responsibilities of the Community as
well as those of the Board. (note on the accountability of the Community
I have also recommended that the CM be subject to IRP on adherence to
bylaws)

I also want to point out one other thing about our Community Consensus
Membership Model - it is one able to exercise its powers only when there
is consensus, for some definition of consensus.  It is similar to the
power we exhibited as a community before the initiation of the CCWG
where the community came together and told the Board & Staff that their
original idea for how this CCWG would work was not acceptable.  In that
case we had to gird our loins for rebellion and start making loud noises
just before the IGF in Istanbul (was it really only a year ago - seems
like a decade).  In the Community Consensus Membership idea, we don't
have to resort to rebellion and revolution, we would have a predefined
process. A process based on our current structure with little change
other than the formalization of things we are prepared to do anyway.

One thing I do not know does CA statue allow membership organizations to
decide things by a consensus process defined without a vote.

avri

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus