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

Sat Oct 17 09:56:30 UTC 2015

>
> Edit:
> Chattering organisations= Chartering organisations
>

*I nominate this as "auto-correct of the week"!*

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>> >
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a6b03b5a/attachment.html>