[CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Sat Oct 3 09:32:05 UTC 2015
Agree that it merits further consideration.
On 02/10/2015 22:56, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Kavouss Arasteh"
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> >>>>>> [mailto: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
> <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151003/dc65db6e/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list