[CCWG-ACCT] Blog: Working Together Through The Last Mile

[Seun Ojedeji]

Great response Bruce, thanks for the open mindedness in all your engagement
with this group. Speaking as a participant of this working group, who did
not commit as much working hours like others, I can imagine how painful it
can be to be hearing something quite contrary to membership route at this
stage.

However, it is my hope that the WG will have an open mind towards this as
well, just as Bruce said, the board legal seem to have found a way around
this so let's hear it and weigh the options. There is no doubt in me that
even the strong supporters of the sole member model knows there are a
number of loose end that is yet to be tightened in that model, while some
critical ones may never get a fitting bolt at this pace. Hopefully board is
expediting it's process in producing more details on its proposal in a
timely fashion.

I like the last paragraph of Bruce response; we need to recognise that one
way or the other a group of people ultimately makes the decision(including
within the SO/AC). There is existing community vs board mindset, as fun as
it could be, I fear that is not helping much in this process.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 7 Sep 2015 23:48, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> Hello Malcolm,
>
>
>     "because we understand that the community is not happy with the
>      current situation we would suggest that we roll back the
>      modification of the standard of review to where it was before
>      2013, and that there is a commitment that the revised standard
>      of review standing panel and procedural improvements will be part
>      of the next phase of work on the IRP enhancements."
>
> >>  Reverting to 2013 rules and the promising to come back and look at it
> later, after transition is not at all what we proposed. So I don't think we
> do have agreement yet.
>
> Yes - We are working on a set of comments that addresses each section of
> the CCWG proposal to make our position clear.   There is still quite a wide
> range of views amongst the Board and staff on some items in the CCWG
> proposal - so some of the vagueness in replies is because there is not
> clarity yet within the Board on some items.   Hopefully that will emerge in
> a day or so.
>
> Speaking personally - my perspective is most of what is in the CCWG
> proposal for workstream 1 is fine by me with respect to the IRP.   I think
> the exact rules of procedure need some refinement - so our statement that
> we can at least roll back the most recent change was simply to gain some
> time to work on those rules - I am thinking a 3 months for a focussed group
> not years.
>
>
>
> >>  Perhaps when we use the word "enforceability" we simply mean different
> things?
>
> >>  When I talk about a decision that is enforceable against ICANN, I mean
> one which ICANN has to comply with. In the final analysis, that would mean
> the ability to go to court and get an order.
>
> Yes - I think the Board shares that understanding as well.  We are advised
> that there is an alternative to the sole member model - once the details
> are available the CCWG and Board members can form their own view.
>
>
>
> >
> > The reason why I have problems with the sole membership model is
> > simple: I am in favor of a new mechanism to strengthen the checks and
> > balances in the ICANN system to keep the board (and the other ICANN
> > bodies) accountable to the community. But in my eyes the proposed Sole
> > Membership Model  is untested, has a number of risks and is open for
> > unintended side-effects. I am not convinced that the proposed voting
> > mechanism is save enough against capture. I did not get a satisfying
> > rationale why Advisory Committees are treated so differently in the
> > proposed mechanism. I have my doubts how governments can be included
> > in an appropriate way into this new mechanism without touching the
> > well designed balance between governments and the non-governmental
> > stakeholders in the ICANN ecosystem.  And there are other detailed
> > questions.
>
> >>  If that is the limit of your problems with the Sole Membership Model,
> there is scope for dialogue and collaborative working.
>
> Speaking personally - if the model being proposed by the ICAMNN legal team
> is not viable - then I also agree that the sole member model could be
> refined to deal with some of the concerns that have been raised.    As has
> been noted - there is no legal issue with the sole member model, it is a
> matter of how the balance of power is implemented in the model -
> particularly between Governments, industry and civil society.
> .
> >>  In many important respects the Board is wholly unaccountable. That is
> not intended as a personal slight; it is an assessment of the current
> structure.
>
> I don't think that is true.   I agree that you can make it more
> accountable - but I disagree that it is unaccountable.
>
> For example, the community elects/appoints Board members - for fixed three
> year terms.   In any given year - 1/3 of the Board can be changed, and in
> two years, 2/3 of the Board can be changed.     A new Board presumably can
> change back anything that the community does like.
>
> The Board also is legally accountable for managing the organization in
> accordance with the law.   Directors can feel the full force of the law,
> and have personally legal liability in this regard.
>
> Just some examples - I fully accept the need for more accountability - as
> does the whole board.   I am just reacting to blanket statements that I
> don't believe are correct.
>
> I assume the current accountability for SO and AC leaders is much the
> same.   Ie many have fixed appointments and go through some form of
> election/selection process.   So if the Board is so unaccountable - doesn't
> the same apply to everyone else as well?   All the proposals seem to rely
> on decisions made by SO and ACs that consist of the same sort of  people
> that make up the Board.
>
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150908/f03ea677/attachment.html>