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

[Jordan Carter]

Hi all, hi Avri,

Thanks for this interesting post. Two thoughts:

- my proposal to include the Board in any decision making related **only**
to their concerns about certain "member powers in California law that cause
us consternation" - the example floating around being dissolving the
corporation. I would not support making the Board a decision-maker in the
exercise of powers that are about holding the Board to account.

- the co-decision model, however, is useful - we have already proposed it
for the change process for Fundamental Bylaws. I'd be much happier to
explore whether that could be usefully explored for other powers.


cheers
Jordan


On 2 October 2015 at 03:50, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>



-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151005/c5b4229b/attachment.html>