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

Mon Oct 5 16:16:13 UTC 2015

Seun,

No, I do not think that this suggestion gives an elevated or special status
to any one SO/AC.  At least, it doesn't have to.  It all depends on how the
input from that SO/AC is handled in relation to the input from other
SO/ACs.  Some care must be taken to provide an equal level of influence on
the outcome, whether the view is expressed as advice or a vote.

I'm not sure why you say "there is no intention to address the fundamental
issue."  What do you believe that "fundamental issue" is?  You do not favor
the membership model, so I assume you mean considering whether to discard
the membership model in favor of the Board's model.  I see active
discussion of that very point on this board.  At the same time, it's also
highly appropriate to consider ways in which the member model can be
improved in response to the Public Comments (including the Board's
comments).  Isn't that what the public comment analysis is for?

Greg

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> .... And you think that suggestion does not give an elevated (or
> "special") status to any one SO/AC.
>
> It is my hope that this is not a consensus call we are making here so I
> think I will try to pause from writing for now as it seem there is no
> intention to address the fundamental issue but we are instead plastering
> the house wall even though the foundation architecture is still being
> fundamentally disagreed upon.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 2 Oct 2015 22:57, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> 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 <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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151005/b0d4e5f3/attachment.html>