[CCWG-ACCT] For Enforcement Model small group on Saturday - Tables & Plan B slides

Sat Oct 17 07:15:18 UTC 2015

Edit:
Chattering organisations= Chartering organisations

Pardon my swype texting predictions

Cheers!

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 17 Oct 2015 07:42, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 17 Oct 2015 04:38, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrlaw.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > If the group ends up focusing on Sole Designator as the “candidate way
> forward”, it seems to me that this can only be a result of Board input
> since the majority of public comment supported the Sole Member.
> >
>
> SO: I don't think your rationale here is accurate even though I don't see
> anything wrong in it if it were the case. I say this because board some
> time ago said they don't believe SD remove their concern. Secondly, the 2
> PC ran by the CCWG has been about member model so it's not appropriate to
> conclude what model option the PC supported when it only had an option to
> comment on.
>
> >
> > 1.       Based on public comment and the Sidley legal advice, the CCWG
> should issue a Supplemental Report keeping the Sole Member model but
> specifying that the exercise of all the Community Powers must be
> accompanied by unanimous consent of all participating SOs and ACs and that
> no SO or AC objects even if not participating in the Sole Member consensus
> call.
> >
>
> SO: This somewhat is not in sync with what you already stated about moving
> from SM to SD; you seem to be suggesting that the shift doesn't happen
> because unanimous consent will be expected norm for any model.
>
> > 2.       For certain extreme Community Powers, e.g. dissolution of the
> corporation, specify that community enforcement may not be commenced except
> by being triggered as the result of a Board resolution.  (Per Sidley, this
> has to be fixed anyway since the current ByLaws would permit a majority
> vote of 5 out of a quorum of 9 directors present to dissolve the
> corporation and that is just silly.)
> >
> SO: +1 to this, in addition (even though it's may be obvious), the process
> though triggered by board must not be concluded by board unilaterally.
>
> > 3.       Some SOs and ACs may not agree with the Supplemental Report and
> will note their disagreement on the record, citing the fiduciary
> responsibilities of the Board and their confidence in the Board and the
> desire to change as little as possible.
> >
>
> SO: I believe the CCWG requires agreement of all chattering organisation.
> I expect that minority views are allowed but so long as they all sum up to
> support then I guess we should be fine. Nevertheless, your statement above
> is still somewhat inconsistent with the premise your started with.
>
> > 4.       Some SOs and ACs will support the Supplemental Report citing
> the MSM and citing the CWG-Stewardship conditions related to strong
> Community Powers.
> >
> SO: This seem like prediction so I don't have comments on this.
>
> > 5.       There will be a very short public comment period on the
> Supplemental Report because not a lot has changed from the Second Draft
> Report.  What has changed is how consensus is developed (not via voting but
> via consensus call) and that consensus is specified to be unanimous.  What
> has also changed is that some community powers, e.g. dissolution, cannot be
> invoked  without first being triggered by a Board resolution.  (See the
> Sidley memo on how to limit powers of the member to address risks
> identified by the Board.)
> >
> > 6.       The Board will consider the Supplemental Report and the CCWG
> Charter provision will kick in which requires 2/3 majority of the Board  to
> reject and then a formal dialogue phase kicks in but at least you have
> followed the MSM public comment procedure and you have followed the
> CWG-Stewardship Final Report requirements.  The Board cites its fiduciary
> duty, its concerns about SO/AC Accountability and various public comments
> received and solicited in Dublin in open sessions.
> >
> SO: I think it will be good to check what the charter says about how board
> considers the CCWG report. I don't get why you are predicting what
> different parties will do but I guess you know why.
>
> > 7.       After the Board votes by 2/3 majority to reject the CMSM, the
> dialogue “begins” and the Community modifies the enforcement model to Sole
> Designator.  CWG-Stewardship goes back to modify its Final Report in light
> of formal Board input and expresses the opinion that the Sole Designator
> model meets the accountability requirements it has recommended with respect
> to the IANA transition.
> >
>
> SO: There is no need to go through that route, whatever comes out as the
> outcome of the CCWG here in Dublin should be available to CWG to analyse
> against her requirements.
>
> > 8.       When Sole Designator is presented to NTIA, no one is able to
> say that the CCWG changed its model based solely on Board pressure alone.
> All proper procedures in the MSM and in the Charter have been followed.
> >
> SO: Hmm... Well the report is not the only thing to be submitted to NTIA,
> the process taken is part of it and NTIA is participating in this process
> as well. Whatever is the outcome of this process has to be owned and taken
> responsibility of by the entire community (including board and CCWG). There
> is no need for hand washing in this process because all hands are
> literarily dirty. There is however need to collectively agree that what
> comes out is generally workable and practically takes up more steps further
> in the community accountability process (including that of board, staff and
> SO/AC)
>
> Regards
> > T
> >
> > The above hopefully does not telescope the outcome of the work of the
> group.  I am likely known at this point as favoring the CMSM.  Nonetheless,
> it has been reported to me that at Friday’s sessions, the Chairs were
> observing that the group faces certain practical challenges.  If these
> practical challenges “rule the day”, then I believe it would be best to
> follow the above procedure in order to avoid certain difficulties that
> could arise down the road after NTIA certification of the transition
> proposal to Congress.
> >
> >
> >
> > Anne
> >
> >
> >
> > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
> >
> > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP
> >
> > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> >
> > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
> >
> > AAikman at lrrlaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan
> Carter
> > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 2:48 PM
> > To: Malcolm Hutty
> > Cc: Accountability Cross Community
> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] For Enforcement Model small group on Saturday -
> Tables & Plan B slides
> >
> >
> >
> > Same place as today all - and an 8.30am start
> >
> >
> >
> > Jordan
> >
> > On Friday, 16 October 2015, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Jordan.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please could you (or staff, or someone) confirm start time (8:30?) and
> particularly, which room for each meeting.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >
> > On 16 Oct 2015, at 18:13, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> One of the small grounds meeting tomorrow is to deal with the
> Enforcement Model.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We anticipate the group will probably be asked to focus on testing the
> two central models (Single Member and Single Designator) with a focus on
> the two powers that attracted most discussion this morning. That is:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - separation review outcomes
> >>
> >> - IRP
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The attached documents essentially include the output the lawyers were
> tasked with with "Plan B", too. They are as follows:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - summary table of enforcement issues under all four models (status
> quo, MEM, Single Designator, Single Member)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - the full detailed table of enforcement issues under all four models
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - a "three column" table that is the summary, just for Single
> Designator and Single Member (the most useful working doc to look at)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - a powerpoint set of slides that details other aspects of the "Plan B"
> which is Single Designator plus a governance review.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I encourage those interested in these issues to look at these
> documents, whether or not you can or will attend the small group session.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> Jordan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <Summary Comparison of Enforcement Mechanisms by Model - Final
> (00723591x....pdf>
> >>
> >> <Comparison of Enforcement Mechanisms by Model- Final
> (00723592xA3536).pdf>
> >>
> >> <3 COLUMN Summary Comparison of Enforcement Mechanisms (Sole Designator
> &....pdf>
> >>
> >> <CCWG Slides--Community Powers with Opportunity for Future Governance
> Rev....pdf>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jordan Carter
> > Chief Executive, InternetNZ
> >
> > +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> >
> > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20151017/19f292d1/attachment.html>