[CCWG-ACCT] RES: A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br
Mon Oct 5 15:48:17 UTC 2015
Dear CCWG-Colleagues,
I realize that this email chain has split into different parallel discussions about various subjects,
but with respect to the suggestion of imposing on the ACs an advisory role, I think it is worth reminding that the GAC, after a long internal discussion, has submitted a consensus paper on the matter, in which it states that:
- the "GAC has not determined whether to participate or not in the 'Community Mechanism' as a voting entity".
- "However, the possibility that the GAC may, in the future and upon its sole decision, fully participate in the 'Community Mechanism' as an entity entitled to 5 votes (on equal terms with the Supporting Organizations - SOs - and the At Large Advisory Committee - ALAC) should be included in the Final report of the CCWG in line with what is contained in Section 6.2 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal."
- "In case the GAC were to decide in the future to participate as a voting entity it would follow its own processes and the procedure foreseen under Section 6.2 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal, especially paragraphs 337 and following."
That being said, I believe it is important that we abide by the principle that it is up to each stakeholder to determine its involvement in the proposed accountability mechanisms. Paragraph 6.2 of the 2nd Draft version of the CCWG-Accountability report respects this notion and that is why the Brazilian Government expressed support for it. Foreclosing the participation of any interested party in the new accountability structure is not only contrary to the aforementioned principle, but contradicts the very concept of "multistakeholderism".
Furthermore, I think it is erroneous to think about the powers to be exercised by the Community Mechanism as a subset of the Board's power. They are simply different powers - different in essence-, such as it happens in states where the principles of "separation of powers" or "balance of power" are adopted. It is important to bear in mind that this CCWG has been elaborating its recommendations based on this "separation" model and it is quintessential to retain that in the upcoming phases of our work."
Finally, I believe it is important to note that if changes are made to the recommendations in Section 6.2, it is difficult to foresee, solely based on the expression of individual GAC members/participants in the CCWG, what a consensus GAC position will be on this matter. It would obviously need to be revaluated by the whole GAC.
Kind regards,
Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)
Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil
T: + 55 61 2030-6609
Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Division of Information Society (DI)
Ministry of External Relations - Brazil
T: + 55 61 2030-6609
-----Mensagem original-----
De: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Em nome de Matthew Shears
Enviada em: sábado, 3 de outubro de 2015 06:32
Para: Greg Shatan; Edward Morris
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
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> 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 < <mailto:FinPet at erst.dk> 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 < <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net> 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, " <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" < <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> 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: <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>> [mailto: <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> 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/> 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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> 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
--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987
________________________________
Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list