[CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Oct 5 19:18:23 UTC 2015
Dear Perdo , in regard with your last paragraph
Quote
*" 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"*
*Unquote*
*While it is true that it is up to each stakeholder to decide how to act,
but we are working together and need to coordinate our wishes and our
involvement.*
*This is a collaborative team working *
*Regards*
*Kavouss *
2015-10-05 21:15 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
> 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/20151005/7c62d1e3/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list