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

Sat Oct 17 10:29:12 UTC 2015

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Edit:
>> Chattering organisations= Chartering organisations
>>
>
> *I nominate this as "auto-correct of the week"!*
>

I hope that comes with some form of plaque :-)

Cheers!

>
> 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
>>
>>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151017/2a3072cb/attachment.html>