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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Oct 4 20:31:58 UTC 2015


Dear Jordan,
I regret if I bwithrted you . You were not clear before but now crystal clear.
I am almost as old as your father.
Pls be kind when you wished to remind me of some repetition by using a softer language.
I do not understand at all what was wrong.
Any , sorry about that
Cheers
Kavouss
 


Sent from my iPhone

> On 4 Oct 2015, at 22:15, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> 
> Kavouss,
> 
> You keep saying that, and I almost completely agree with you.
> 
> My suggestion is ONLY that any powers a member has that ARE NOT ACCOUNTABILITY POWERS could be exercised with the Board participating.
> 
> I **agree** with you in respect of the accountability powers. 
> 
> All the standard powers we have been talking about cannot have the Board involved, because that breaches the separation of powers you are talking about and which I strongly support.
> 
> The only specific "Member power" mentioned so far for which my proposal would be any use is the "dissolve the corporation" power. Another is probably "Unilateral changes to ICANN bylaws".
> 
> We don't need those powers; they are not the accountability powers the CCWG seeks to implement; there is no problem as a practical matter in making them "impossible to use" by making the CMSM's decision process to use them include the Board.
> 
> 
> best
> Jordan
> 
> 
>> On 5 October 2015 at 08:48, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jordan
>> Tks fir first point
>> I have serious concerns about the involvement of the Board on any decision making as co sharing the  exercising the community powers .
>> Example if co sharing in amendment of bylaws is entirely unique opportunity for such sharing the power and SHALL NOT be extended to any other power otherwise the separation of responsibility is totally ignored
>> Tks
>> Kavouss   
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 4 Oct 2015, at 21:39, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20151004/18d5f909/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list