[CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Oct 5 19:15:05 UTC 2015
Dear Pedro,
I do not recall that GAC had agreed to CCWG Proposal as it was published on
03 August wuith the deadline for comments till 12 September,
Perhaps you referred to CWG which we agreed ojn by consensus with a
statement
Pls be so kind and ....
Kavouss
2015-10-05 21:04 GMT+02:00 Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <
pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br>:
> Dear Kavouss,
>
> Thank you for your comment.
>
> Despite the fact that the CCWG is refining its recommendations in the
> light of the comments received and of the discussions in Los Angeles, in my
> email I wanted simply to remind that the GAC had supported a previous CCWG
> recommendation by consensus and that any change to that would need to be
> revisited in order to have a formal GAC position on it.
>
> Moreover, given the suggestion of some colleagues (made last week), I
> wanted to emphasize the principle that it is up to each stakeholder -
> including the GAC - to determine its involvement in the proposed
> accountability mechanisms.
>
> In the light of the recent email exchange in the CCWG-Accountability list,
> I thought it was important to recall these two points.
>
> 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: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> Enviada em: segunda-feira, 5 de outubro de 2015 15:42
> Para: Greg Shatan; Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
> Cc: Seun Ojedeji; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do
> Anything!' problem
>
> Pedro,
> What you said is exactly what I replied to Jorge few weeks ago .
> Now the situation is changed
> Ir might be good to retain the rights of ACs as consensus advice which
> would be effective if it is in favour of or against of an outcome.
> What you are describing is something that was prevail about one month ago.
> The situation is rapidly changing/ developing and we need to adjust
> ourselev to the prevailing coircumstances .
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-10-05 18:16 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>
>
> 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 <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
> >>>>>>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151005/9d4558cb/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list