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

Thu Oct 1 19:54:55 UTC 2015

Mark,$
I have to do some other job now
I will reply to your question tomorrow
Cheers
Kavouss

2015-10-01 18:11 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> 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/b4d96421/attachment.html>