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

Fri Oct 2 21:56:49 UTC 2015

I think this is a reasonable suggestion.  A "one-size-fits-all" (or don't
wear it) approach was not really working for us.  The SO/ACs may be equal
(though some would argue otherwise) but they are not identical, and a
system that accounts for those differences, without giving an elevated (or
"special") status to any one SO/AC, would seem to be warranted.

Greg

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> As a matter of principle I object to any group, including the GAC, having
> special status of any kind. It distorts the multi-stakeholder model. As a
> practical matter, this is a compromise solution that I could reluctantly
> accept. Compromise never feels good, but it is the only way to move things
> forward. Props to Keith for suggesting this and to my Danish colleague for
> agreeing to it.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed Morris
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Oct 2, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk> wrote:
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > Your suggestion that
> >
> > 1. The GAC  remain advisory (no voting), but otherwise participate
> actively in the Single Member body/forum, etc.
> > 2. The GAC could also have special advisory status within the Single
> Member body/forum, etc. similar to that of its relationship to the Board.
> >
> > is indeed very balanced and constructive and something that DK fully can
> support!
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Finn
> >
> >
> > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> > Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af Drazek,
> Keith
> > Sendt: 30. september 2015 18:38
> > Til: Kavouss Arasteh; James Gannon
> > Cc: Accountability Cross Community
> > Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do
> Anything!' problem
> >
> > In my view, a balanced and constructive solution would be to blend
> James' and Kavouss' suggestions:
> >
> > 1. The GAC, SSAC and RSSAC remain advisory (no voting), but otherwise
> participate actively in the Single Member body/forum, etc.
> > 2. The GAC could also have special advisory status within the Single
> Member body/forum, etc. similar to that of its relationship to the Board.
> >
> > This would mirror the current structure, ensure full participation, and
> not erode the GAC's important role and function in the community.
> >
> > Might the GAC support this? Could the GAC formally propose this?
> >
> > That said, I'm not confident this would resolve the Board's concerns
> with membership, so we will need to consider all options available to
> deliver community empowerment, including variations of the sole designator
> implementation.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss
> Arasteh
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:59 AM
> > To: James Gannon
> > Cc: Accountability Cross Community
> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do
> Anything!' problem
> >
> > James
> > If really the community wishes to properly treat GAC, another type if
> GAC advice should be included in the Bylaws with the sane objectives as
> that of GAC advice to ICANN Kavouss
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 30 Sep 2015, at 15:19, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> So in order for the GAC to to happy to advise the SMCM there would need
> to be another GAC special advice bylaw, or am I misinterpreting?
> >> Is this a GAC position or?
> >>
> >> -jg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 30/09/2015 14:06, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Mike,
> >>> I an sorry to say  that your analysis of the GAC Advice  to the
> community to be similar to the GAC Advice  to the Board dies not seem to be
> legally valid since the latter has a specific implementation nature where
> the firmer has not since  there   Would be nothing in the future Bylaws  to
> that effect
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Kavouss
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>>> On 30 Sep 2015, at 14:59, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier at intel.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> You're welcome.
> >>>> They should not vote, they should just advise the single member the
> same way they advise the board.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear mike
> >>>>> Thank you for the message.
> >>>>> May you please provide legal arguments why an AC should be pushed to
> vote.?
> >>>>> Tks
> >>>>> Cheers
> >>>>> Kavouss
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 30 Sep 2015, at 14:02, Chartier, Mike S <
> mike.s.chartier at intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think Malcolm has it exactly right. The powers that the Single
> Member would be exercising are a subset of the Board's today. So the the
> GAC, RSSAC and SSAC should participate in the Single Member as they do on
> the Board.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> >>>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On
> >>>>>> Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty
> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 5:04 AM
> >>>>>> To: Jordan Carter; Accountability Cross Community
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can
> >>>>>> Do Anything!' problem
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 30/09/2015 01:15, Jordan Carter wrote:
> >>>>>>> *Here is a suggestion.*
> >>>>>>> *
> >>>>>>> *
> >>>>>>> *For the exercise of any of the Member Powers the CMSM would have
> >>>>>>> (beyond those we "want" it to have), why don't we include the
> >>>>>>> ICANN Board as one of the groups that has to vote / come to
> >>>>>>> consensus to exercise them?*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you Jordan, that's a very interesting suggestion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let me suggest another, along similar lines, that occurred to me on
> last night's call.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fadi said that he would be very happy for the Single Member to have
> the ultimate power in ICANN if it reflected the entire community, but was
> concerned about "concentrating power" in it as it did not reflect the whole
> community, as some parts of the community had said they could not
> participate in the Single Member.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is possible Fadi misspoke. Perhaps he was not really offering a
> reason for objecting to our proposal, but was simply trotting out a
> debating point to cover his fundamental opposition to giving up power. I
> know some here will suspect him of such intransigence, and counsel that the
> only way forward is for us to bend to the Board's will. But I think it is
> better, and more productive, not to mention more respectful, to treat Fadi
> as sincere, and to address his stated concern directly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *For that reason, I would like to propose that we amend our Report
> >>>>>> to state explicitly that GAC, RSSAC and SSAC will participate in
> >>>>>> the Single Member in an advisory capacity, as they do on the
> >>>>>> Board. The mechanism and procedure for these bodies to provide
> >>>>>> advice to the Single Member will be the Community Forum, as
> >>>>>> already defined.*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It now strikes me that we may have erred in saying that SSAC,
> >>>>>> RSSAC and
> >>>>>> (possibly) GAC would/might not participate in the Single Member.
> The only thing in which they may not participate is the vote that directs
> how the Single Member acts. It is entirely possible for them participate
> fully in the deliberations the Single Member undertakes prior to taking a
> decision, giving their advice as they see fit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course, I understand that we never intended to exclude these
> bodies from giving their advice in the Community Forum. In the "reality" of
> our intentions, the change I propose is no change at all. On the other
> hand, Fadi expressly stated that he saw the non-participation of the bodies
> in the Single Member as a real problem. In choosing to express ourselves as
> saying that these bodies are unable to participate in the Single Member we
> have invited that criticism; an outcome that can be readily corrected.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It should be noted that this would exactly mirror the current
> position of these bodies on the Board: they participate in the Board by
> means of giving advice, but do not participate in votes. So it would be no
> more true to say that what I propose does not count as real participation
> in the Single Member than that it would be true to say that they do not
> participate in the current governance arrangements.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps this will resolve it. If not, if the Board say that
> "non-voting is not sufficient, they must be voting too for the SMM to
> reflect the whole community", then they must explain why they apply a
> different standard to the SMM than to the Board. I think they would find
> hard to justify to the community, to NTIA, to Congress that they were
> withholding their support for a community proposal that would mirror their
> own makeup, on the grounds that the require voting power to be given to
> entities that have been offered it and declined.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I understand that there may be further, separate objections. But if
> we are to find a way forward, we must consider each of them. If this is one
> that can be crossed off the list, I would count that as progress.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>        Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public
> >>>>>> Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London Internet
> >>>>>> Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>             London Internet Exchange Ltd
> >>>>>>       21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     Company Registered in England No. 3137929
> >>>>>>   Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi
> >>>>>> ty _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi
> >>>>>> ty
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151002/759f2150/attachment.html>