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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Arun,

What involvement will that be? Literally speaking the outcome of community
forum would/should be implemented by board, if board have reasons not to
implement then they communicate back to the community with rationale and
then the process continues. I don't think it will be healthy to keep having
back and fourth discussion with board. It will be good to have a consensus
view from the community and then have board address those.

I am concerned with the way we are trying to diminish the status of board.
There is a reason they are called directors and we can't just have
community and board together act in such status.

Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Oct 2015 13:11, "Arun Sukumar" <arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in> wrote:

> Kavouss, you're right: no one should be a judge of their own cause. But
> equally important is the requirement to hear all parties. Let us not get
> into the voting/consensus debate right away. If the Board is willing to go
> with some involvement in the SMCM, we may have a modus vivendi to work with.
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Dear All
>> Jordan proposal contradict the concept of separation of power. Board ad
>> an executive entity shall not participate in voting together with SOs and
>> ACs as these two entities are legislative entities.
>> We can not invent a new procedure mixing the two powers.
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 1 Oct 2015, at 12:36, Arun Sukumar <arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Bruce,
>>
>> To bring us back to Jordan's initial suggestion, if the Board were to
>> play some role in the Single Member model - with the form of
>> decision-making and areas of decision making clearly specified -- what
>> would the Board's take be? Would it still oppose the SMCM?
>>
>> Arun
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Bruce Tonkin <
>> Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Keith,
>>>
>>> That is a good summary of some of the issues that have been discussed by
>>> Board members.
>>>
>>> When I get some time over the weekend - I will post some relevant
>>> extracts from the Board's public comments, and also offer some of my own
>>> personal thoughts on the single member model.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bruce Tonkin
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek,
>>> Keith
>>> Sent: Thursday, 1 October 2015 3:16 AM
>>> To: Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>;
>>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do
>>> Anything!' problem
>>>
>>> Thanks Nigel.
>>>
>>> In no particular  order, my interpretation of the Board's written
>>> comments, what we heard in Los Angeles and from Fadi yesterday is:
>>>
>>> -- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, is
>>> new, untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the limited time
>>> available to meet the September 2016 date.
>>>
>>> -- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body is
>>> potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to sell as
>>> not introducing risk at a delicate time.
>>>
>>> -- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a commensurate
>>> level of accountability, and the current SOs and ACs do not have sufficient
>>> accountability at this time.
>>>
>>> -- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside and
>>> from within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear safeguards is
>>> problematic.
>>>
>>> -- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not balanced
>>> if it doesn't include all community members, and two groups (SSAC and
>>> RSSAC) have said they want to remain advisory.
>>>
>>> -- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a voting
>>> structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder model.
>>>
>>> -- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to
>>> explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes that
>>> are more easily implemented and understood.
>>>
>>> -- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance restructuring
>>> will suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky message
>>> going into the transition.
>>>
>>> I'm obviously not in a position to speak for the Board, but that's my
>>> non-legalistic reading of the concerns.  I'd be happy to be corrected if my
>>> interpretation is off-base.
>>>
>>> That was a reply to your question (a).  I can't respond to question (b).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Keith
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -
>> @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar>
>> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance
>> <http://www.ccgdelhi.org>
>> National Law University, New Delhi
>> Ph: +91-9871943272
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -
> @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar>
> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance
> <http://www.ccgdelhi.org>
> National Law University, New Delhi
> Ph: +91-9871943272
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151001/d08e765e/attachment.html>