[CCWG-ACCT] Where do we stand?

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Oct 13 04:14:32 UTC 2015


George, I find this a thoughtful message and it 
deserve answers. As you, I am only speaking on my 
own behalf, although I suspect that much (but not 
all) would be supported by my At-Large 
colleagues. I am short on time, so forgive any typos...

Perhaps this will prompt others to answer your questions.

At 12/10/2015 03:33 AM, George Sadowsky wrote:

><6 concerns>

I share many of these feelings, but must comment on two of them:

Removal of Directors by AC/SO vs overall 
community: My personal position is that if a 
group can select a Board member, then they should 
be able to change their mind and remove as well, 
but I can live with community removal as well. 
But I think the Board concern has little merit. 
Given the frequency of AC/SO directors being 
renewed, I cannot see this happening all that 
often, and if it does, there may well be good 
cause. Perhaps there is an edge case of a good 
director being removed frivolously. But we also 
have no way to guarantee that no appointed 
director will be a dud. But we live with the 
uncertainty with the hope and intent that it is not a frequent occasion.

On the last point, I will point out that 
Cardinals do not bill by the hour at the rates our attorneys do!


>In order to assist in resolving our current 
>difficulties, here are some issues that I 
>believe are pertinent.  I raise them in the form 
>of questions., for I believe that there is not a 
>common precise understanding of them.  Is it 
>possible to provide simple and direct answers to 
>them that might be useful for establishing 
>greater understanding of the differences that 
>still exist and beginning to bridge them?  That would be helpful.
>
>A.  It appears that the single designator model 
>is very much the same as the single member mode, 
>but with the only statutory power being to 
>select or remove directors.   In general, is 
>this correct?  In brief, what are the other differences?
>
>  To establish any new structure the community 
> still needs to address a range of open topics 
> to ensure ICANN’s stability and freedom from capture:
>    * •   which SO and AC will participate in 
> the decision-making mechanism (which SOs and 
> ACs will opt-in)?  For dismissal of the entire 
> Board, why should it not require active assent of all ACs and SOs?
>    * •   what will be the Decision basis among 
> participating SOs and ACs by _____ % of all SOs and ACs??
>    * •  how will advice from those SOs and ACs 
> opting-out of the decision-making mechanism 
> (similar to GAC/Board advice?) be taken into consideration?
>    * •   how will  will  conflicts of interest 
> and fiduciary or other responsibilities (such 
> as public interest) will be factored into overall decision-making ?

As I understand it, the ONLY statutory power that 
a designator has is to appoint and remove 
directors. Any other powers it may be given will 
need to be spelled out in the Bylaws.

My personal feeling is that we don't even need 
designators. We could have a Community Mechanism 
as a Single Widget and grant that entity the 
Bylaw power to appoint/remove directors. It may 
be a de facto designator under the California 
code, just as the SOs and At-Large is now, but if 
the name is a problem, let's ditch it.

I note that to make the MEM work, we will 
probably need just such an entity to allow a 
group of SO/ACs to take IPR or other action.


>B. In Buenos Aires, there was discussion and 
>convergence (I thought) on an "empowered AC/SO" 
>model.  Does this model offer any initial point 
>for movement to convergence of opinion?

It died an un-natural death when the CMSM was born...


>C. The Board proposal calls for each AC/SO to 
>decide if they are for or against and issue 
>instead of possibly dividing its "vote". Is this a show-stopper?

Not for me. Each AC/SO must already decide, AS A 
UNIT, whether it will participate in the CMSM and 
whether to launch or support a petition to 
exercise some power. It would be natural to use 
the same mechanism to actually exercise the power.


>D. The Board proposal allows any AC/SO to weigh 
>in on a particular issue (and decide to exercise 
>or oppose the use of one of the powers. The CCWG 
>proposal requires and AC/SO to decide ahead of 
>time whether it will participate in future uses 
>of the powers. Is this a show-stopper?

It seemed a natural way to do things when we 
invented the community powers. I see no problem 
with leaving it open until a need to decide on exercising a particular power.


>E. What would the community take as evidence in 
>the short term that the Board is acting in good 
>faith?  I'm concerned by what appears to be 
>Board bashing on the list, wherein many things 
>that any of us say or do are interpreted 
>negatively and perhaps conspiratorially.  I 
>realize that the great majority of people 
>involved int he CCSG process do not have such 
>attitudes, but predictably it only takes a very 
>few individuals to sour and confuse a discussion and lessen its utility.

If you are talking short term, as in days or 
weeks, then it needs to be something that does 
not need a lot of investigation or preparation. 
The one thing that has been talked about for 
YEARS that fits this description is make all 
Board meetings and Board Committee meeting open. 
Yes, it will likely force SOME discussions 
offline, but it will also give AC/SO and the 
NomCom SOME insight as to how their appointed 
directors act. Why would that be bad?

Alan


>I'm sure that these questions reflect my limited 
>and imperfect understanding of the situation, 
>and perhaps some naïveté also, but there 
>aren't many other ways to gain a productive understanding of it.
>
>
>Comments welcome.
>
>George
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20151013/bbafbc0e/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list