[CCWG-ACCT] A path to Dublin and beyond

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Fri Oct 9 21:51:55 UTC 2015


Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 3 Oct 2015 21:33, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org> wrote:
>
> 6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in any
court recognizing international arbitration results — even if ICANN’s board
refused to participate in the binding arbitration.  (assuming CCWG lawyers
verify this works without activating a Membership model)
>

SO: Will be good to know if this is now confirmed to be Yes or No.

> I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers
before we leave Dublin.   And based on what we’ve heard recently, the board
will support the powers described above.
>
> But there’s one more we have to add before losing the leverage of this
IANA transition:
>
> Let’s put into ICANN bylaws a method where the community can show
consensus to undertake a review of ICANN's governance structure, either
because the powers above aren’t working, or just because the community
overwhelmingly wants to review governance.   The goal of the Governance
Review is to recommend a new governance model that might even include
moving to Membership.
>
SO: +1 on this, we could even set the current SM outcome of the CCWG(or SD
model) as the blueprint trigger governance model  to be implemented(after
review by governance committee) once the community consensus for governance
review is achieved. There may not be need to start the process of
determining what type of structure will be required during that time since
a lot has been done already in this process.

>
To Bruce’s point, any proposal emerging from this Governance Review would
include assurances that ACs and SOs are representative of global internet
users and protected from capture.
>
SO: The more we improve on community inclusiveness, I believe this should
not be a problem

> This same bylaw could describe a process for board acceptance of a
consensus proposal emerging from the Governance Review:  it would take 2/3
board majority to object to the proposal on the grounds that it is not in
the global public interest, triggering a board-community consultation.
After consultation, a new community proposal would take 3/4 board majority
to object.   If the board objected a second time, we would have the power
to recall that entire board, or to pursue binding arbitration.
>

SO: Perhaps the trigger for constituting a governance review
committee/group should come before this stage. It should also require a
high threshold from board to object (3/4). That said, I think the current
work of the CCWG needs to be the main source of reference for the
governance committee as that process needs to be more efficient and timely
done. There will be no need to start redesigning a model, so it will be a
good thing that board knows the model coming into implementation once
governance review committee is triggered.

That on its own should make board think twice whenever it considers how to
react to consensus view of the community.

> Again, these are my personal thoughts about a way forward that is based
on what others have said recently.
>
SO:

Quite helpful.

Thanks!

> —Steve DelBianco
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151009/cefd2aad/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list